House of Commons
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the developmental situation in Yemen; and if he will make a statement.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the developmental situation in Yemen; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the developmental situation in Yemen; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
Yemen is of the highest priority to the coalition Government. Subject to the Department for International Development’s bilateral aid review and the security situation in Yemen, DFID is inclined to increase its commitment to that country. We believe strongly in the power of development to give solid foundations to a country that faces threats to its stability and economy.
The UK is playing a leading role in the Friends of Yemen process, in which our partnership with Gulf states is an essential element. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to exchange views on Yemen and to build our common approach. That will help to ensure that the commitments made in New York in September are delivered in time for the next Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh in February.
Caroline Nokes
Given the difficult security situation in Yemen, will the Minister outline UK priorities in that country?
Mr Duncan
DFID’s programme is part of the UK strategy to address instability and conflict in Yemen and to develop the economy. We engage with the Government and other donors to create the political will needed for action on reforms. Our work helps to make people’s lives better by delivering basic services such as health, education and justice to the poorest communities, and to provide jobs and short-term employment through cash-for-work schemes. We also provide life-saving humanitarian support for the 300,000 displaced people in Yemen.
Graham Evans
At the last International Development questions, I raised the importance of Yemen in the war on terror, which the subsequent ink cartridge plot underlined. The Gulf states are obviously key to addressing Yemen’s challenges. What are the Government doing to engage with those states?
Mr Duncan
The security situation is obviously of the utmost importance. The most important Gulf partner is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which co-chairs the Friends of Yemen process, but more than $3 billion-worth of pledged financial support has remained unused since 2006. We are therefore pressing for better donor co-ordination, in which the Gulf states are obviously crucial partners.
Mr Spencer
I welcomed the Minister’s speech at Chatham House—he set out the challenges facing Yemen and spoke of putting development and diplomacy at the heart of our response. Will he inform the House what progress has been made to implement reform through the Friends of Yemen process?
Mr Duncan
In my speech at Chatham House, I outlined the importance of development in Yemen. The Government want to underpin that country now rather than have to step in later should things get worse. Through the Friends of Yemen process, we are helping the Government of Yemen with the implementation of an International Monetary Fund financial reform programme. I stress very strongly that we are not telling Yemen what to do; we are working as a partner to support it in facing its challenges.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you very recently met the Speaker of the Yemeni Parliament, and President Obama and the Prime Minister spoke about Yemen last week at the G20. Processes are very welcome, as is Britain’s leadership role in this whole endeavour, but we need positive action. Will the Minister ask the Foreign Secretary to issue an invitation to the Yemeni Foreign Minister and other Yemeni Ministers, so that they can come to London as a matter of urgency—before Christmas—and we can implement the very good words that the Minister has just spoken?
Mr Duncan
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion—he has a strong interest in, and knowledge of, Yemen. His suggestion is constructive. There will be a further Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh. If we are to get anything out of that meeting, we have got to get cracking now, which means that constant purposeful engagement with our Yemeni counterparts is essential. I will certainly ask the Foreign Secretary to take up his suggestion.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
It is obviously important for us to do all we can to help to tackle poverty and instability in Yemen, but where there is instability, it is even more difficult to get aid to people who need it. The expertise of DFID officials in that regard is widely respected around the world. Will the Minister assure us that as the work of his Department is reviewed, nothing is done to undermine its ability to play its part in ensuring that aid in conflict zones really gets to those who need it?
Mr Duncan
May I say what a pleasure it is to be up against the right hon. and learned Lady once again, after a little gap? What she says is absolutely right. We are, as I said, inclined to increase our support for, and spend in, Yemen, but obviously the security situation will determine whether we can put enough boots on the ground to deliver the aid and assistance that we wish to deliver. Crucially, however, we are looking on our work there as a pioneering exercise in trying to address the challenges of a fragile state before its condition gets worse.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
3. What funding his Department provides to British charities with international developmental goals operating overseas.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
In 2009-10, the Department for International Development provided £362 million to UK charities and civil society organisations to assist in poverty reduction overseas. The global poverty action fund, which will increasingly shape partnership with charities and non-governmental organisations, was launched on 27 October.
Dr Poulter
I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that we need to get funding to the right place. On improving women’s health overseas, does he agree that the focus should be on making interventions in the right place, which is during delivery and childbirth, which account for over 50% of deaths among women? That is where we should be focusing our resources when we fund overseas aid.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Reproductive, maternal and newborn health care is the subject of a business plan discussion that is under way. With his expertise, I very much hope that he will contribute to our thinking on that. The plan will be published in January. As he said, we need to focus on the continuum of care, up to birth and beyond. We are quite clear about the importance of the issue, but he will know that placing women’s choice over whether and when they have children is at the heart of all the overseas programmes that we run.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Let me declare an interest in that I recently went to Bangladesh as a guest of Oxfam. I am sure that I join the whole House in paying tribute to the excellent work of British development non-governmental organisations around the world. In Bangladesh, I saw Oxfam’s work in raising awareness of the impact of climate change on some of the world’s poorest. Although the Government’s commitment to continue the work on development and climate change is welcome, the commitment of the international community still falls short. Ahead of Cancun, what steps will the Government take to push for a greater commitment on climate finance from other countries?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about the quality of the programme and those who staff it in Bangladesh. I am glad that she was able to visit our programme last week. She has seen a country where climate change affects the everyday lives of millions of people, and she is quite right to underline the Government’s commitment to ensuring new and additional mechanisms for raising international finance to tackle climate change. I will be making a speech on the subject tomorrow, and the Government will be pressing hard in the run-up to Cancun and beyond to see that we make significant progress in this area.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
British development NGOs are world class and do a fantastic job, but has my right hon. Friend noticed that they all have their own advocacy departments and produce their own glossy publications? Would it not be better if they co-ordinated themselves slightly more, so as to cut out unnecessary duplication and competition?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will have noticed that the global poverty action fund that we launched is principally a matched fund, in order to enable the taxpayer to piggyback on the brilliant development outcomes that many of our NGOs produce. That is the right principle, whereby taxpayer support can focus on results, outputs and outcomes, and not on inputs.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
4. What steps he is taking to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV in developing countries by 2015.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
11. What steps his Department is taking to support the UNAIDS goal to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV by 2015.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
The Government are committed to a comprehensive approach to eliminating paediatric AIDS by focusing on where we have a comparative advantage—that is, on primary prevention of HIV among women of child-bearing age and on prevention of unintended pregnancies among women living with HIV through our investments in family planning.
Bill Esterson
Does the Minister agree that it is important that children who have already contracted HIV should be able to access medicines to stay alive? If so, will he join me in calling on pharmaceutical companies to make their patents available to the patent pool, so that there can be affordable HIV drugs for children?
Mr O'Brien
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government definitely support the UNITAID patent pool, which is, as he knows, a mechanism to facilitate the development of new, particularly fixed-dose combination drugs, partly to ward off the danger of monotherapies. That can be a key means of addressing the treatment challenge. We welcome UNITAID’s decision to create a separate foundation to manage the pool’s activities, and we recognise that that is an important step. We now need the milestones to be put in place as rapidly as possible, so that we can convert it to a working programme going forward.
Katy Clark
We believe that about 1.4 million pregnant women globally are infected with HIV, and about 1,000 babies are infected every day. We also believe that worldwide funding for HIV treatment is on the decline. Will the Government commit to making a strong contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and also to prioritising not just keeping those pregnant women alive, but taking steps to prevent those babies from being infected?
Mr O'Brien
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I know from the number of her questions that I have answered that she takes a keen interest in these issues. The UK has been a good supporter of the global fund to date, and its replenishment is subject to current negotiations and the multilateral aid review.
On the hon. Lady’s particular concern, the reproductive, maternal and newborn health business plan is the coalition Government’s key mechanism to prioritise the health of women and babies. It will support service delivery across the continuum of care needed to improve the health of women and girls, and will scale up the prevention of mother-to-child transmission—PMTCT—of HIV. That will address the underlying causes of the AIDS epidemic, gender inequality, gender-based violence and poverty. We will certainly—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful, but the Minister must cut it short. Work needs to be done on these things. The answers are often far too long.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
As the Minister said, the current Government strongly support, as did the previous Government, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. What is the Minister’s assessment of the success of the country co-ordinating mechanisms, and particularly the efforts to ensure that co-infection of HIV and TB is well managed on a country basis?
Mr O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman makes an informed point. One way of ensuring that the global fund, which scores well on its effectiveness, gets even better is to ensure that when there are conflicts in the country co-ordinating mechanisms, they are addressed. The co-infection of HIV and TB is an increasingly well understood area of research and practice, and that understanding is shaping the programmes through the multilateral aid review, and will therefore inform those programmes going forward.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell the House what his Department is doing to support the Glion call to action, whereby consensus has been reached on the importance of family planning in preventing the spread of HIV, particularly maternal transmission from mother to child?
Mr O'Brien
My hon. Friend makes the vital point that family planning is at the heart of ensuring that we prevent the transmission of these diseases. I assure him that we are putting women’s and children’s health at the core of our international development agenda, and will contribute to saving the lives of at least 50,000 women and 250,000 babies, and to providing 10 million more couples with access to family planning.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
5. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of people in developing countries without access to basic sanitation.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Reducing the number of people in developing countries without access to basic sanitation is a key priority of the coalition Government. The review of our aid programme will determine how we scale up our efforts and results in this area.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. As Friday is world toilet day, what is his Department doing to raise the international agenda’s priority to improve sanitation, particularly as 1.5 million children under five die every year from poor water hygiene and sanitation, which is more than die from malaria, AIDS and measles combined?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue in those terms. Diarrhoea is the biggest killer of children in Africa. This is a core subject for the coalition Government, and we are looking at it in our bilateral aid review. Although I do not wish to pre-empt that review, I can tell the House that I am confident that we will be able to ensure that, over the next four years, tens of millions of people will be able to gain access to clean water and sanitation who are currently unable to do so.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his remarks at the millennium development goals summit earlier this year, in which he emphasised the importance of sanitation, but will he explain to the House why, when the United Nations passed an historic resolution on 30 September affirming that access to water and sanitation were human rights and that Governments had a legal responsibility to deliver that access, the United Kingdom voted against it?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman needs to look carefully at the words that I used at the summit, about which he has just made his nice remarks. The fact is that 2.5 million deaths are caused by a lack of sanitation and 39% of people in our world do not have any access to a basic hygienic latrine. That is why we are focusing not on rhetoric but on results in trying to achieve specific outcomes in this very important area.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
In the last Parliament, the Department for International Development acknowledged that it had refocused its priority on sanitation in the wake of the report by the International Development Committee. Given that, according to figures from the “Water, Sanitation and Health 2008” report, 79% of rural homes in India have no access to sanitation, what will the Secretary of State do within the programme for India to ensure that sanitation is a key priority?
Mr Mitchell
The Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right to say that my predecessor admitted that the Government had taken their eye off the ball on this important matter. We are looking carefully at the Indian programme as part of the bilateral aid review and, as part of our examination of the programme, we will be looking specifically at our support for sanitation.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The sanitation situation in Haiti remains critical after the earthquake in January this year. Following that earthquake, many of our constituents sent donations to support relief efforts there, and they are now very concerned about the outbreak of cholera, which is having a devastating impact. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the delivery of aid in Haiti, and on how the help is getting through to those who need it most?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important subject. Britain has helped to bring clean water—the specific point that he raised, I think—to 380,000 people in Haiti. I sent a senior humanitarian expert last week to look at the situation on the ground, and to help specifically with co-ordination there. We are working with other United Nations agencies to ensure that this is prioritised and we are of course considering the recent appeal that the UN put out in that respect.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the outcomes of projects under the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The global fund is assessed annually against key performance indicators. The programmes of the global fund have saved 5.7 million lives since 2000. The review of all our multilateral spending, including on the global fund, is designed to ensure maximum impact and value for money.
Grahame M. Morris
Does the Minister recognise that other countries look to the United Kingdom for leadership on HIV strategy? If so, does he agree that a strong UK contribution to the global fund will encourage other countries that have not yet made their financial contributions to step up to the plate? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. That is very unfair to the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State and unimpressive to those following our proceedings. The Secretary of State is champing at the bit; let us hear him.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the importance and success of what the global fund has achieved. This includes circulating 2.8 million people with antiretrovirals, diagnosing and treating 7 million people with tuberculosis and distributing more than 122 million bed nets to help to prevent malaria. We have sent a clear signal to the global fund of strong support in this replenishment round. The precise level of that support will be dictated by the multilateral aid review.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
8. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that funds allocated for development programmes by his Department are not used to purchase imported asbestos products.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
Asbestos is banned in 52 countries, including in the EU and the UK. We are totally opposed to its use anywhere, and would deplore its supply to developing countries. We are not aware that DFID funds have been spent on asbestos products, and we would take urgent action, should we be so advised.
Jim Sheridan
I thank the Minister for that response, but can he assure the House that UK assistance to improve health standards in developing countries is not compromised by asbestos mining in Quebec? He may be aware of the multimillion dollar guarantee for development in Quebec, which might mean millions of tonnes of asbestos being dumped on unsuspecting populations in the years to come, with more than 4,000 people killed a year.
Mr Duncan
I note that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned tirelessly on asbestos and pleural plaques, and I studied his debate on the subject in Westminster Hall last year. I understand that Canadian exportation of asbestos is a cause for concern, and I will pass the issue he raises to my colleagues in the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. From my Department’s point of view, we will take all necessary steps to ensure that we do not use dangerous asbestos products anywhere in the world.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the incidence of tuberculosis in developing countries of the revised global plan to stop TB.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
I know the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the terrible suffering caused by tuberculosis around the world. I am happy to confirm that the Government welcome the Stop TB Partnership’s revised global plan, which sets out a clear road map to achieve ambitious targets, including to halve TB deaths by 2015. This will require making progress on the underlying causes.
Mr Sharma
I thank the Minister for his response. As I am sure he knows, TB needlessly kills 1.7 million people a year, yet no new treatments or vaccines have been developed for 30 years. What are the Government doing to ensure that the UK plays its part in eradicating this disease by funding TB control measures and supporting the development of new drugs, diagnostics and vaccines?
Mr O'Brien
The UK is committed to reducing unnecessary deaths and suffering from TB. My Department is currently reviewing its aid programme to determine how to achieve better value for money for the taxpayer and accelerate progress towards achieving all the millennium development goals. We will certainly review the forward approach to TB, including research, once we have the findings from the bilateral and multilateral aid reviews. As of 2009-10, we estimate that about £55 million was spent on direct programmes, and health system strengthening also needs to be taken into account.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Somalia is one of the countries with the highest incidence of TB. Will the Minister say how practical it is to reduce the incidence of TB across the world, particularly in countries where law and order has broken down?
Mr O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to identify the fact that TB ravages countries, not least in conflict states. As we design programmes that will have an effect in conflict states, it is vital that TB is right there among the very top of interventions. As we go through our bilateral aid review and focus on hard-to-reach people in conflict states such as Somalia, we must ensure that TB is one of the pre-eminent issues to be tackled. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise, which is indisciplined and discourteous. I, for one, want to hear Mr David Ruffley.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
10. What the development outcomes were of the G20 summit in Seoul; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
G20 leaders endorsed the Seoul development consensus on shared growth and agreed to a multi-year plan to tackle the obstacles to growth in poor countries. As part of this plan, leaders also agreed to take measures to increase trade within Africa.
Mr Ruffley
At the summit, the Government rightly stressed the need for a free trade area for Africa. At present, only 10% of trade in Africa is between African countries. Does the Secretary of State agree that knocking down the trade walls between African countries will deliver economic benefits far outstripping the amount of aid that developed countries can give?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the point about the importance of having a pan-African free trade area—one of the four specific areas championed by the Prime Minister at the G20 summit in Seoul. Knocking down those trade walls, having one-stop border posts and promoting trade within Africa is the key area in helping people to lift themselves out of poverty throughout Africa.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
What meetings did the Prime Minister have with other G8 leaders in Seoul to persuade them to reinstate the commitments to increase aid which they made at Gleneagles?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend raised the matter not only in private but specifically at the table. He pointed out that it was hard to expect leaders in the developing world to stand by their commitments to their people if leaders in the G8 and others did not stand by the commitments that they had solemnly made at Gleneagles and beyond on the importance of increasing our support for the poorest in the world.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the value for money of his Department’s aid delivered through the UN Relief and Works Agency.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
UNRWA is performing well against agreed performance indicators and delivering value for money with United Kingdom funding. For instance, it is delivering teaching to nearly half a million children, and social services to more than a quarter of a million. During my recent visit to the Palestinian territories, I announced an extra £8 million to reward UNRWA’s good performance and ease its budget shortfall.
Joseph Johnson
During a recent visit to Gaza, it was obvious that UNRWA was struggling to obtain the construction materials that it needs to rebuild schools and find housing for refugees. Does the Minister agree that DFID would derive greater value for money if the partial blockade were completely lifted?
Mr Duncan
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that he was able to see the situation in Gaza for himself.
Although some progress has been made since Israel eased access restrictions, UNRWA is still unable to import the volume of reconstruction materials that it needs. Any restricted access enhances the tunnel economy and risks putting revenue straight into the hands of Hamas, which in itself is entirely counter-productive.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 November.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Ranger Aaron McCormick of 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, who died on Remembrance Sunday. His commanding officer has described him as
“the epitome of the Irish Infantry soldier: tough; selfless; good-humoured and full of compassion.”
He showed astonishing bravery, leading the way in clearing improvised explosive devices for the safety of local civilians and his fellow soldiers. We send our sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
I am sure that the whole House will also wish to join me in sending our warmest congratulations and best wishes to Prince William and Kate Middleton on their engagement. I am sure that everyone agrees that it is wonderful news. We look forward to the wedding itself with excitement and anticipation.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mark Lancaster
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments.
Possibly the best piece of news to emerge from the unemployment figures this morning is the rise in the employment count, but small businesses in Milton Keynes are still concerned about both the cost and the bureaucracy of taking on extra workers. What can the Government do to help them?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. We must do more to make it easier for small businesses to take people on. However, this morning’s figures are good news. The claimant count is down by 3,700 on the month, unemployment as defined by the International Labour Organisation is down by 9,000 on the quarter, and crucially, as my hon. Friend has said, employment is up by 167,000 on the quarter.
We are helping small businesses by cutting the small business rate of corporation tax, we have the “one in, one out” rule so that new regulations will be limited, and we have a new enterprise capital fund to provide additional equity finance. We need to do all those things, but I think we also need to do more to help small businesses to take people off the unemployment register and put them back into work.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to ranger Aaron McCormick of 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, who died on Sunday. His brave service in our armed forces will be remembered, and we send our deepest condolences to his family.
I also join the Prime Minister in sending our warmest congratulations to Prince William and Kate Middleton on their engagement.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many fewer police officers there will be as a result of his 20% real-terms cut in the police budget?
The Prime Minister
It will be up to individual police forces—[Hon. Members: “Ah.”] This is very important. It will be up to individual police forces to try to ensure that they maximise resources in the front line. What we said in the spending review was that it was possible to retain the high level of visibility and activity of police on our streets. That is the challenge to every police force in the country, and I think that when we look across police forces and see how many officers there are in human resources and information technology and performing back-office functions, it is clear that we can succeed.
Ms Harman
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says that while there are, of course, efficiencies, cuts of beyond 12% will inevitably result in cuts in the number of front-line police officers, yet the Prime Minister is asking not for 12%, but for 20% cuts. As usual, he has ducked the question, and he will not admit how many front-line police he is cutting. He used to be very clear about protecting front-line services. This is what he said on 2 May:
“any cabinet minister if I win the election…who comes to me and says, ‘Here are my plans’ and they involve frontline reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”
So what did he say to the Home Secretary?
The Prime Minister
This question has been asked of the right hon. and learned Lady’s own former Home Secretary—now the shadow Chancellor—and this is what he said. [Hon. Members: “Answer.”] He was asked—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister’s answers will be heard. [Interruption.] Order. What Opposition Members make of them is up to them, but they will hear them.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Andrew Neil asked the shadow Chancellor a very simple question:
“Can you guarantee if you form the next Government that police numbers won’t fall?
Alan Johnson: No.”
That is what Labour said. It can engage—[Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Lady wants to, why do we not engage in a proper debate about how we try to make sure we maximise resources on the front line? That is what we are asking the police force to do, and that is what the Opposition should be involved in, instead of this cheap game.
Ms Harman
We were absolutely clear in our manifesto, and the former Home Secretary was absolutely clear, that we would guarantee central Government funding to protect front-line services. No wonder the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers are so silent: he is planning to cut their police forces by 20%. [Interruption.] Their constituents will be astonished to see them cheering 20% cuts in the police budget.
The Prime Minister will be aware of the report of the chief constable of Greater Manchester setting out how front-line police numbers will have to be cut. What does the Prime Minister say to the people of Greater Manchester, who will be deeply worried about the cut in police numbers?
The Prime Minister
First, let me answer the point the right hon. and learned Lady made about what Labour said after the election. The shadow Chancellor was asked about—[Interruption.] Well, the right hon. and learned Lady raised the point about what was said after the election, and the Shadow Chancellor said:
“If Labour had won the general election, the Home Office budget would have been cut and the police would have had to make savings.”
That is what it said.
The right hon. and learned Lady asks about Greater Manchester, so let me answer specifically about Greater Manchester. First, the chief constable of Greater Manchester has said that his plans are putting “the maximum resources” on front-line policing, and I am not surprised he is able to say that, because here are the figures for the employment levels in the back-office functions: human resources, 187 people for that force; fleet vehicle maintenance, 106 people; finance, 106; IT—[Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members want to know the facts about Greater Manchester police, and these are the facts about Greater Manchester police. Guess how many people are involved in IT in Greater Manchester police: 225. This is the debate we ought to be having: how do we get resources from the back office on to the front line? How do we do it when right now only 11% of police officers are on the streets at any one time? That is the mess we have inherited; that is the mess we are going to clear up.
Ms Harman
But the chief constable’s report is clear. As well as cutting important back-office staff, front-line police will have to be cut; that is what the report says. The Prime Minister says—he always says this—that all this is unavoidable because of deficit reduction. In that case, can he explain why he is spending what the Association of Police Authorities says is £100 million creating new elected police commissioners at the same time as cutting police numbers?
The Prime Minister
The police commissioners will replace the police authorities—that is the point. The key issue, which the right hon. and learned Lady has now addressed, is that we are doing this because we inherited the biggest budget deficit in the G20. It is no good Labour talking about cuts, because it was planning 20% cuts. We are just having to introduce measures to deal with the mess that Labour made, but instead of just top-down cuts, we want to work with these organisations and say, “How do we help you to maximise the impact on the front line?” That is why we are scrapping the stop form—Labour introduced that— and that will save 450,000 hours of police time. We are going to limit stop-and-search reporting, and that will save another 350,000 hours of police time. This is the nonsense, the bureaucracy and the form-filling that Labour put in place. We are freeing the police officers to get out to do the job that people want them to do.
Ms Harman
By the way, it is an extra £100 million and the Prime Minister is spending it on elected police commissioners when that extra £100 million is the equivalent of hundreds of police officers. Police numbers do matter in tackling crime—of course they do. Will he drop his proposal for elected police commissioners and give the police the resources they need to protect front-line policing?
The Prime Minister
The straight answer to that is no, I will not, and I will tell you why. It is about time we had more accountable police forces in our country. I want there to be police commissioners so that when they do a good job calling the police to account and they are fighting crime in the way that local people want, they get re-elected. If they do a bad job, they will get thrown out. We all think that democracy is a great thing in here; what about a bit of democracy in policing as well?
Ms Harman
What local people want is to see their local police on their local streets. There he is posing as the guardian of probity in public finances. It cannot be denied that he knows a thing or two about posing. Why, at the same time as he is cutting police numbers, did he choose to use public money on not only a vanity photographer, but on putting staff from Tory headquarters on to the public payroll, with taxpayers footing the bill. Why did he do that?
The Prime Minister
Even the jokes are lame this week.
Let me tell you a few people we will not be employing. We will not have special advisers ordering around civil servants like Labour did. We will not be employing Damian McBride to smear the wives and families of politicians. We will not be employing Alastair Campbell to sex up dossiers to make the case for war. I have got a list—[Hon. Members: “More, more.”] Do you want some more? There is plenty more. I have got a whole list of people here who were employed by the last Government. Here is one, Ruth Mackenzie. She was a Labour party employee. She then became an expert adviser in the Department. What was her qualification? Well, according to The Guardian, “She speaks new Labour”. Well, there we are, that is a great qualification. There is another one here—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I got the gist of it. We do not need to hear any more. Let me just say to the House, and that includes every Member of the House, that it is now time that we got back to questions and answers about the policies of the Government. That is what the public expect and that is what the public are entitled to get.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Q2. More than 41% of all loans drawn from the enterprise finance guarantee scheme were issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland and a further 30% were issued by Lloyds bank, yet 27 banks are operating in the marketplace. No matter how we look at the figures, that means that 25 banks are simply not doing their job and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that those dilatory banks do all they can to help SMEs have the working capital—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat not when he chooses, but when I choose.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has spoken up very passionately—and rightly—about that issue, because one of the keys to securing recovery is to get bank lending going. His points are extremely valid. A bank-led £1.5 billion business growth fund is providing finance to SMEs and we have added to that with the enterprise capital funds programme and the enterprise finance guarantee. That should secure an extra £2 billion of lending, but I agree with him that we need to be vigilant on the issue and to keep pressurising the banks to do more to help those small businesses.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Q14. Reports suggest that as many as 1,700 of my constituents will lose their jobs as a direct consequence of the Government’s spending cuts. What action will the Prime Minister take to ensure that unemployment in West Dunbartonshire does not reach the levels that it did under the last Tory Government?
The Prime Minister
What we have to do—the hon. Lady is right—is make sure that there is a private sector-led recovery. That is why we have low interest rates, corporation tax coming down, cuts in national insurance for new firms that are hiring people and less regulation. We have all those advantages as an economy and we need to engineer a private sector-led recovery. The unemployment figures today, which I notice that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) did not go anywhere near, are a good sign that that private sector-led recovery is under way.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Q3. In September, Ofsted raided Powers Hall infant school in Witham, despite an outstanding head teacher making a formal complaint about the inspector and the poorly constructed report by Ofsted. Two teachers have resigned from the school and the head teacher is now asking for the school to be re-inspected. Will the Prime Minister visit that tremendous school to hear at first hand the disgraceful and bureaucratic way in which it has been treated by Ofsted? Will he press for Ofsted to withdraw this flawed report while an independent inquiry is launched?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks up powerfully for her constituency. I can understand the concern. Obviously, it is important that school inspections are carried out to the highest possible standards and I do not think that it would be right for me to comment in detail on an individual case. There would be dangers in automatically withdrawing a report because a complaint has been made—some might use that to frustrate the process—but we need to ensure that reports are done in a good and professional manner.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Q4. When he next expects to visit Central Ayrshire.
Mr Donohoe
I note that the Prime Minister did not say that he was coming to Central Ayrshire; he does not know what he is missing. If Mohammed will not come to Ayrshire, is it possible, given the reports in the national press about Irvine, the largest town in my constituency, having the highest unemployment in Scotland, that he would meet a small delegation to discuss the question of unemployment?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises what will be one of the defining issues of the next few years, which is how we get people out of unemployment and how we ensure that losses of jobs in the public sector are made up for by growth in the private sector. That is an absolutely key area. That is why bank lending matters, why helping SMEs matters, why tax rates matter and why the regional growth fund that we are introducing helps. I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman—I wanted to keep him in a bit of suspense—just in case I do not make it to Central Ayrshire.
Mr Speaker
Order. As the House will know, that was a closed question about Central Ayrshire. We are now back to open questions.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
The Prime Minister will no doubt be aware that my constituency has suffered from severe flooding overnight. Many hundreds of people are affected and there has been significant damage and disruption in central Cornwall. Will he join me in commending the professionalism of the emergency services and their response to the incident and will he further commit the Government to doing all they can to help support the affected communities in the coming weeks and months?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly do that. I have just spoken to Alec Robertson, the leader of Cornwall council, about the situation in Cornwall. There was a very difficult night in central and south-east Cornwall. The emergency services—the police, the coastguard, the fire services and search and rescue—have been working around the clock and they have done a fantastic job, and I am happy to send that message loud and clear from this House. There are no reports of casualties yet, but there have been some medical evacuations. The train line is still blocked and the A38 is still closed, but I know that everyone is working around the clock to try to get this sorted. We have said that we stand ready to help in any way we can and what the hon. Gentleman says is important—we have to remember that when the flood waters start to recede, many of the biggest problems arise with insurance and getting people back into their homes. We must ensure that we help people in every way we can.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Q5. Writing in The Sun in January this year, the Prime Minister said that“midwives are stretched to breaking point…So we will increase the number of midwives by 3,000…This is the maternity care parents want…And under a Conservative Government, it is what they’ll get.”This morning, the Prime Minister stands accused by the Royal College of Midwives of reneging on that promise. Does he want to take this opportunity to differentiate himself from his Deputy’s attitude to such solemn promises, and honour that pledge to midwives and mothers?
The Prime Minister
We do want to see an increase in the number of midwives and, unlike Labour, we are actually funding the health service in a way that makes that possible. The hon. Gentleman’s shadow Chancellor said, when asked about our pledge to increase funding in the health service:
“There is no logic, sense or rationality to it at all.”
I know the hon. Gentleman used to work on the “Today” programme, so let me give him a thought for the day: “The health service is better off with our Government.”
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take this opportunity to assure my constituents in Sittingbourne and Sheppey that planning circular 01/06 will be scrapped in the near future, and that Travelling communities will then be treated in the same way as settled communities with regard to planning law?
The Prime Minister
I am not fully up to date with that particular planning circular, but I reassure my hon. Friend that, as I have said here before, Traveller communities should be treated in a similar way to other communities, in that they cannot have planning permission retrospectively granted when they have not obeyed the rules. That is not right. Everyone should obey the law.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Q6. I wrote to the Prime Minister about my constituent, Scott Sheard from Formby. Scott suffered severe brain damage when he was assaulted in July, and he needs a wheelchair so that he can go home. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the good news that Scott’s wheelchair will be ready next week, and will he intervene to help others in Merseyside and elsewhere who have been on the waiting list for wheelchairs for far too long?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am certainly happy to do that. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. MPs of all parties in all parts of the House, and anyone who has ever tried to get a wheelchair for anybody, will know that the delays and the lack of choice and the lack of power people have is incredibly frustrating. It must be possible in this day and age to put more power in the hands of patients or parents to make sure we have better choice, faster wheelchairs—[Interruption.] Sorry. We should get the wheelchairs a bit faster.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
With Ministers taking 5% pay cuts and Departments facing a reduction of 19%, does the Prime Minister share my dismay that the Labour party is to receive an extra £1 million of taxpayers’ money—an increase of 20%? If we are all in it together, should it not pay it back?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. A lot of people on the Opposition Front Bench do not seem to understand that the taxpayer provides Short money and the amount that goes to Labour is going up by 21%. As other Departments are having to take such severe cuts—the cut in No. 10 Downing street, for instance, is 25%—I look forward to an offer from the Labour party.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Q7. I welcome the commitment the Prime Minister made two weeks ago to a new silicon valley in east London, but will it be like the promise to the midwives? Can he tell us how many jobs he wants to see created in east London, and what specific steps he and the Government will be taking to make that happen?
The Prime Minister
First, I praise the people who put together the idea of “tech city” in east London, in terms of the number of businesses they have actually encouraged to commit to going there—Google, Intel and others. I do not think it is right for the Government to try to identify the precise number of jobs that will be created, but we have seen a huge level of enthusiasm, great commitment from Ministers, and a number of businesses committing to going to Shoreditch and the Olympic park, where there is a fantastic space for an incubator for new businesses. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will help us to get behind that and create what could be a silicon valley for the east end.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Q8. One of the keys to securing economic growth in areas such as Staffordshire Moorlands is the promotion of vocational education and apprenticeships. Can the Prime Minister assure students and staff at further education colleges, such as Leek college in my constituency, of the Government’s continued commitment to this area?
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely. My right hon. Friend the Skills Secretary produced the skills strategy yesterday, and yes, we are having to make difficult decisions, but in the middle of that, we are increasing the number of apprenticeships by 75,000 over what was planned, as well as putting more money into building FE colleges, which is vital for the future skills of our country.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I endorse the sentiments expressed earlier by the Prime Minister in relation to the tragic death of Ranger Aaron McCormick of the 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, who was tragically killed on Remembrance day. His service and that of others will never be forgotten. Many troops from Northern Ireland are serving in Afghanistan.
May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Prime Minister’s expression of best wishes to the happy couple—the royal couple? We wish them well for the future and I hope they will enjoy a visit to Northern Ireland in due course.
On Afghanistan, can the Prime Minister give us an update on the training and equipping of Afghan security forces, a process allowed only by the service and sacrifice of our troops?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The training mission and the equipping and training of Afghan soldiers and police officers is not only essential for the future of Afghanistan, but is the way in which we will be able, over time, to draw our own soldiers down and bring them home. We have the NATO summit this weekend. That will be one of the most important issues on the agenda. The training mission is now being well supported. We are giving huge support, but other countries are coming in behind us. The performance of the Afghan army is improving, but we have to keep working at that and making sure that it has all the equipment that it needs.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Q9. Last week Warner Bros announced £100 million investment in Leavesden Studios in my constituency. That is very welcome, as it will provide more than 600 jobs and a real boost to the local economy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the producer tax credit for the film industry, which was significant in Warner Bros’ decision to make the investment, will continue, and that the Government will consider ways to get British investors to invest in British films made here so that the profits remain in this country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. What Warner Bros is doing is very welcome. We are committed to supporting the film industry. We are committed to continuing with the tax credits that he speaks about. One of the keys to Warner’s success in his constituency is the Harry Potter film franchise that it has been making. It has been incredibly successful. There is a great tip and key to filmmakers, which is that we must make films that people want to watch, and films that will have a benefit beyond themselves—that also encourage people to come and visit our country.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
Q10. Can the Prime Minister be very precise and tell the House whether he is honestly saying that if one in four police officers are taken out of Greater Manchester, as well as one in four of the police community support officers, that will have no impact on deterring and detecting crime? If he will say that, will he come to Manchester and explain it to people whose fear of crime is still a major issue?
The Prime Minister
What I say to the hon. Gentleman is, first, that the chief constable has said:
“We have been working for some time on plans to ensure the Force provides the most efficient service and the maximum resources are focused on frontline policing.”
When one looks at the figures for how few police officers really spend their time on the beat because of the paperwork and the form-filling, and when one looks at how we are managing our police forces and at the numbers in human resources, finance, IT and training, I say that we must do better. There is a choice. We can either say, “All reductions in public spending are a disaster and we can’t deal with them,” or we have to try and find a way to get more for less. That is what we are doing in the coalition Government. The Opposition are just not engaged in the debate.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister agree that as an international trading nation and a leader in international development, it is vital that we can attract key people from around the world to this country for short and long-term stays? When will he be able to tell the House how the Government are finalising the criteria for the visa and immigration cap, to end the uncertainty that could damage investment in the UK as a preferred location?
The Prime Minister
I can tell my right hon. Friend that we are working on the issue. I do not think there will be any difficulties in achieving the two goals that we have. One is to get the immigration system that we inherited under control. The current level of net immigration into the UK of 200,000 a year—2 million over a decade—is too high. It needs to be brought down, but we should do that in a way that is business-friendly and helpful to the economy. When we look at the rules that we inherited and the fact that people were coming into this country under tier 1, but often had no skills at all or were not working in skilled jobs—some were even working in pizza restaurants—it is clear that the system was not working properly. That is what we have to get right.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Q11. What does the Prime Minister have to say to my constituents on the Ings estate on Preston road in east Hull, who will now be left in unfit housing because his Government have scrapped the flagship housing market renewal programme, the Gateway pathfinder scheme? Over the past few days, I have been inundated with constituents who are desperate, living in properties surrounded by properties that are boarded up. I am seeing them tomorrow night at a residents meeting—what message of hope can I give them?
The Prime Minister
There are schemes like the regional growth fund that people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be able to apply for to help to deal with issues such as improving the level of housing. That is one of the schemes that we have. We also have a huge programme for upgrading and building new homes through the new rent scheme. All these can make a difference, and he can talk to his constituents about them.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Sandwell metropolitan borough, part of which I represent, has very high levels of deprivation. Can the Prime Minister reassure the children and parents from schools in Sandwell that the Government, particularly with their pupil premium policy, are on the side of children and families in Sandwell?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely can do that, because we made some difficult choices in the spending review to say that we are going to put more money into early-years education for two-year-olds from deprived families. That was previously not available. We are going to fund extra hours for three and four-year-olds in nursery education. We are going to make sure that there is a pupil premium, never dreamed of by a Labour Government in 13 years in office, that is over and above the per-pupil funding in our schools. Then we are going to carry that through to university so that children on free school meals will get some time at university for free and will not have to pay the student premiums. All those things will make a big difference, and they show that this is a Government who have made some progressive choices in education, even though we inherited a mess that we had to clear up.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Q12. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Business Secretary that the scrapping of regional development agencies has been “Maoist and chaotic”?
The Prime Minister
Given that my right hon. Friend is implementing the policy, that is not his view. We all take the view that the RDAs wasted a vast amount of money. Many of them were not popular with the businesses in their area, and the local enterprise partnerships will do a much better job. I suggest to the hon. Lady that instead of complaining about it, she works with her local authorities to get a good local enterprise partnership in her area to start backing business, jobs and economic revival.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
On a day when employment is at the top of people’s minds, could I ask the Prime Minister to join me in congratulating the Saga Group on its wise decision to move into Hastings, which has very high public sector employment, with up to 800 new jobs for the town?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Saga and the very good work that it does. I am sure that in choosing Hastings it has made an excellent decision. There is good news in today’s unemployment figures, and we should celebrate that. There is a lot more to do to get this economic recovery under way, but it would help if we did not have so many people determined to talk down the performance of the British economy.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Q13. Does not the devastation in Cornwall illustrate the false economy of the Prime Minister’s recent decision to slash investment in flood defences?
The Prime Minister
That is simply not the case. The fact is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be spending over £2.1 billion on flood and coastal erosion risk management over the next four years; that is roughly the same as what was spent over the past four years. We made some difficult choices in the spending round, but we protected flood defences because that is important. But all the while we had to bear in mind the absolutely wretched and rotten inheritance we had from the lot over there.
Mr Speaker
We now have an Urgent Question. I call Mr Peter Bone. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Wellingborough gives the House the benefit of his thoughts, can I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly? Mr Bone wishes to be heard, I wish to hear him, and I hope that the House wishes to hear him.
Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the Government’s position about the proposed financial rescue package for Ireland.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement to the House about Ireland.
The House will understand that the Chancellor is currently in Brussels at the meeting of the Council of EU Finance Ministers. I understand that hon. Members are concerned about the events that have unfolded.
Ireland has been facing difficult economic and banking challenges for some time, and as a member of the euro area its ability to use policy to respond to economic shocks is less flexible than our own. As a result, there are ongoing market concerns about Ireland’s economic and financial resilience.
Let us be clear: there has been no formal request for assistance from Ireland, or for that matter from any other member state. I hope the House will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to engage in any speculation on what might happen in Ireland, given that it has made no request for assistance. It is not for me to say whether Ireland should request assistance, just as I would not tell it how to run any part of its economy. Its large financial institutions have obviously got themselves into difficultly, and we very much hope it will be able to resolve those pressures.
Ireland is one of our biggest export markets. We have very close economic ties with it and, as the Chancellor said this morning, it is in Britain’s national interest that the Irish economy is successful, so we stand ready to support Ireland in the steps that it needs to take to bring about stability. I am sure that our fellow EU member states will share that sentiment, and I assure the House that we will keep it informed of developments.
Mr Bone
I thank the Minister for his response. At a time when the United Kingdom is already contributing extra funds to the European Union—over the next five years our net contribution will be £41 billion, an increase of more than £21 billion compared with the past five years—and when we are making drastic cuts in the UK’s economy, does he think it is acceptable that any further funds should be committed to the EU?
The coalition Government have made it clear that we will not join the euro during this Parliament, arguing that the euro, with its single interest rate but diverse economies, cannot work. Will the Minister confirm that we will not be joining the euro?
The Government have also made it clear that the UK will not support the euro. Will the Minister therefore rule out the UK participating in any bail-out of the Irish economy? Will he also confirm that the €440 billion special-purpose vehicle facility—a voluntary intergovernmental agreement between eurozone countries —should be used for any such bail-out?
Does the Minister further agree that the use of the stabilisation mechanism, which the United Kingdom guarantees up to £8 billion, was not intended to be used to bail out eurozone countries facing financial pressure? Finally, does he agree that what is required from the EU is support for member states’ policies when, like Ireland, they are trying to do the right thing? Instead, the EU has undermined Ireland and created a crisis.
Mr Hoban
May I first reassure my hon. Friend that it is not the Government’s intention to join the euro during this Parliament? I am not entirely sure what the Opposition’s view is, but we have ruled that out.
My hon. Friend mentions the two mechanisms that are available for stabilisation. The stabilisation facility is purely for eurozone member states, outside the auspices of the current treaties and a bilateral, Government-to-Government arrangement. The mechanism that he refers to is available to all members of the European Union. The previous Government and the previous Chancellor decided to join it in the days prior to the formation of the current Government, and I believe that they need to be held to account for that decision.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly, these are difficult times for the world economy, and Ireland is the current focal point of market concerns. Although the Minister offered little in the way of detail today, is it not clear that, stepping back, the overall long-term lesson to learn from these developments is that economic growth matters?
Ireland is a vital trading partner, to which 7% of our exports are sold, and the current situation matters because its economic strength has a significant effect on our own growth prospects. Will the Minister accept that the emerging global recovery is fragile, and that to rely as heavily as the Government do on export-led growth in the years ahead is a risky gamble?
Will the Minister confirm that this issue extends beyond trade, and that UK banks have lent about £83 billion directly to Irish households and companies? We saw at the G20 last week that the Government need to show stronger leadership on economic growth here and abroad, so can he reassure the House that any forthcoming package from the EU will address fundamental and underlying economic issues rather than act as a sticking plaster, merely tackling symptoms that may recur again and again in future?
The previous Government were clear that the problems facing countries adopting the euro would need to be solved first and foremost by member states within the euro area. Will the Minister confirm that the principal fund designed for any loan to support the Irish or other eurozone countries would be the European financial stability facility, which is envisaged at about €750 billion? Are reports in today’s Financial Times correct that the UK is spending time and effort spinning any future action as “bilateral support” rather than co-ordinating with the EU? Would it not be better if the Government were straight with the public about what they plan?
Does the Minister accept that, although we were right to stay out of the euro, it is essential that the euro is stable and successful for the long term? Will the Minister say categorically that the Treasury’s position will be driven by the best interests of British growth and jobs and not designed to pander to the Eurosceptic political instincts of those in his party who might circle the eurozone in its time of difficulty?
In 2006, the Chancellor wrote in The Times that Ireland’s economy provided a “shining example” to us all. Is it not clear now that, rather than being an example, it provides a warning of the dangers of a one-track economic strategy, built around austerity alone, that endangers growth and puts jobs at risk? Both abroad and at home, what matters is a strong strategy to rebuild jobs and growth.
Mr Hoban
The Chancellor made it clear this morning that we will do what we need to do in accordance with Britain’s national interest. Ireland is our closest neighbour, and it is in our interests to ensure that the Irish economy is successful and that it has a stable banking system. He said that we stand ready
“to support Ireland in the steps it needs to take”
to bring about that stability. The reality is that Ireland has got some things right. It has a flexible labour market and low taxes. None the less, it made the same mistake as the previous Government—it failed to regulate its banks properly. The problem in Ireland is driven not by high public spending but by a banking crisis. If we listened to the Opposition, the UK would be the only country that was weakening rather than strengthening its fiscal position.
It is clear that the actions we have taken have been welcomed by a range of bodies at home and abroad. What is happening at the moment demonstrates that concerns about sovereign debt issues have not disappeared. We should be grateful that, thanks to the actions of this Government, Britain has moved out of the fiscal danger zone.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is much interest and little time, so in questions and answers alike I require brevity.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The €440 billion eurozone facility can be used without infringing either UK liability or sovereignty. The Darling guarantee mechanism with qualified majority voting involves, unnecessarily, both UK liability and sovereignty. Where it is in our national interest and we can afford it, why not provide a UK-Irish but non-EU loan?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I have a large number of Irish constituents, and I am naturally concerned about their families and livelihoods back in Ireland. The fact is that the Irish crisis is part of a wider crisis in the eurozone, affecting a number of countries that will be unable to sustain long-term membership of the euro. Is it not time to have discussions—privately, perhaps—about the possibility of reconstructing national currencies, particularly the punt, so that the Irish can join the sterling zone, where they belong, and not the eurozone?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As the Irish Government need a workout and not a bail-out to deal with their risks and credit problems, should not the British Government support them and resist the foolish intervention by Germany, which is trying to use this as part of a power grab for the EU?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Given that Chancellor Merkel’s comments have caused such turbulence in the bond market in the past week, I welcome the measured and respectful terms in which the Financial Secretary and the Government have addressed the crisis in Ireland. Does the Financial Secretary accept the judgment of EU Commissioner Olli Rehn? He said:
“In the case of Ireland in particular, we need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working. It needs reform.”
The problem does not apply only in Ireland. I remind the Financial Secretary that, if the national pension reserve fund is counted, Ireland’s debt to GDP ratio is not that far wide of the UK’s currently.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The crisis is around the banking system in Ireland—it is not a fiscal crisis. Of course, we almost had to learn the lessons of failure to regulate the banking system. The Government therefore introduced radical reforms to strengthen the stability of the banking sector in the UK.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Does the Financial Secretary accept that it would be a disservice to families and businesses in Ireland to exaggerate their economic woes, just as it would be in this country?
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I welcome the statement of the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor, and their offer of £6 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to help stabilise the eurozone? We must all welcome the contribution to consolidating the eurozone as a sound economic area. However, what has happened to moral hazard? Most of the money will go to the banks. When will they pay anything—any price—for the crisis they caused?
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Irrespective of our obligations under the new European mechanism, which the Labour Chancellor agreed, will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a strong British national interest in securing a stable banking system on both sides of the Irish sea?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have strong economic ties with Ireland, which is one of our biggest trading partners. Our economies are closely interlinked, and it is therefore in our national interest to ensure that the Irish economy and banking system are stable.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
What is Her Majesty’s Government’s strategic view of the crisis? Should we bail out the Government or their banks?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm the extent of Britain’s liability under the non-eurozone mechanism? Has he considered the possibility of renegotiating the package that the previous Government left us?
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Does not the Financial Secretary think it worrying that, when the Irish Government consistently say that they do not require a bail-out, the speculators in the bond market—the hyenas who used to attack our currency—try to bring down the Irish Government’s financial position? Is not it right to support Ireland and the euro, of which it is part?
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Will the Financial Secretary tell the House about the strong interest being shown across the world in the Government’s positive approach to tackling fiscal consolidation? Does not that further confirm that this country is now on the right path to tackling the economic crisis?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The crisis reminds us of the continuing focus on sovereign debt. The Government have taken clear measures to tackle our fiscal problems, and international bodies have recognised that. It is one of the reasons for Standard & Poor’s reporting our credit rating as stable compared with its negative outlook under the previous Government. We are taking the right steps to secure our fiscal position, bearing in mind that the crisis in Ireland is around banking, not the fiscal position.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
It is in no one’s interests for the Irish Republic’s economy to go down even further, but taxpayers in the United Kingdom are worried that the Irish Republic could be next, followed by Portugal, Spain and Italy, and that the full and true extent of what we might have to pay is not known.
Mr Hoban
I do not want to engage in speculation about the eurozone; I do not think that that is very helpful. The hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and their colleagues, will know from experience in Northern Ireland that we have very strong interests in the stability of the Irish economy, and it is important that we stand ready to help the Irish Government in stabilising it.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the problem in Ireland is not so much the fiscal measures that it is taking, or global growth, but the fact that it is in the euro, and that as long as Ireland is in the euro it is hard to see how it can work its way through these problems? Would the Minister like to pay tribute to all those on this side of the House who fought to keep this country out of the euro?
Mr Hoban
Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes an important point. We have access to a wider range of economic tools to resolve our problems as a consequence of our being outside the euro. It is also worth bearing it in mind that this crisis flows from the banking sector, not from public spending in Ireland.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is right to support our near neighbours in Ireland and their economy. The problem over the past 18 months has been twofold: severe austerity measures and the collapse of the construction industry. Will the Government ensure that we do not follow that path? Will the Minister use the flexibility the Government have outside the euro to ensure that we slow the cuts and do not have the mass unemployment and depopulation that we have seen in Ireland?
Mr Hoban
I thought that the hon. Gentleman almost had it. The crisis in Ireland is around the banking sector, not the fiscal position. I believe that we are taking the right measures to stabilise the UK economy—the cuts we are making in public spending—to get our deficit under control and to keep interest rates as low as possible for as long as possible. Labour Members are the only ones calling for a weaker fiscal position when the world is moving to stronger fiscal stances.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
If we are to spend taxpayer money dealing with this crisis, rather than bailing out the euro should we not be helping Ireland to bale out of the euro or, at the very least, to retain her economic independence against the Van Rompuy system of pan-European economic governance?
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the Minister for the reassurance he has already provided in not ruling out intervention or assistance should it be required. Will he provide further reassurance that he will give special consideration to the situation in Northern Ireland, where many of the Irish banks to which he refers are operational and indeed on which many of our businesses rely?
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Can the Minister provide my constituents and the markets with the reassurance that any British involvement will be conditional on the full involvement of the International Monetary Fund?
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
The Government spent six months telling us that Britain was very much like Ireland and had a similar sovereign debt crisis. Now we hear that we are in a very different position because we are not in the euro and we have other economic tools. Which is right?
Mr Hoban
We have taken action in the UK to tackle our fiscal position to avoid a sovereign debt crisis. [Interruption.] Opposition Members need to recognise that the problems facing Ireland stem from a banking crisis—the banking sector was poorly regulated. We are learning lessons from that in the UK, but it is very clear that because we are outside the euro we have the flexibility to engage in economic policy by setting interest rates that meet our economic needs, and we have the flexibility that our exchange rate brings in stimulating exports. We are in a much better position as a consequence of being outside the euro.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Would it not be a grave error if we took from this episode the lesson that we should weaken our resolve to deal with our debts and keep our house in order?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is noteworthy that Opposition Members have made yet another call for us to put off making difficult decisions. We see in Ireland what will happen if we do not make difficult decisions now and sovereign debt ratings come under pressure.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that we should thank goodness that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom? Scottish banks were bailed out by the UK as a whole rather than being left to float loose as those in Ireland have been? Does he agree that if, when they are making cuts, the Government can find billions of pounds to bail out Ireland, they could better use that money to ameliorate the effect of the cuts in the UK?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does not the crisis in Ireland and across Europe underline how right the Government have been to take the tough but necessary action to save us from bankruptcy? Will the Minister condemn the siren voices in Europe that are talking down Ireland, and will he be a friend in need, as we, as a country, should be?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes a number of very valuable points. If we had not taken tough action when we came into government, when rating agencies had our credit rating as negative, we would not have managed to narrow the spreads on UK debt compared with German bunds and reduce the yields on British debt. All that is testament to the strength of the action we have taken to tackle Britain’s fiscal problems and the legacy we inherited from the Labour party.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Has the Treasury considered the implications for sterling if the Republic of Ireland were to leave the euro and seek to re-peg to the pound?
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
In the event of a request for assistance from European funds, does the Minister believe that Ireland should be allowed to set its own rate of corporation tax, with its low rate being a strength rather than a weakness?
Mr Hoban
As I said earlier, a number of aspects of Irish economic policy created growth, but I remind my hon. Friend, and Opposition Members, that the problems facing Ireland stem from a banking system that was not well regulated, which led to an asset price bubble. We have taken the right action in this country to tackle our deficit and to avoid having our credit rating put at risk.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The mechanism established to address bad banking debt in the Republic of Ireland, the National Asset Management Agency, known as NAMA, holds several billion pounds of properties in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly here in London. What representations are the Government making to protect our economy from NAMA deciding to float that property at the cheapest possible price to meet the needs of the banking sector in the Republic of Ireland, thereby damaging our economy?
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the banking crisis was caused, in large part, by poor regulation? Will he take into account comments made by the City of London corporation to the Treasury Committee yesterday that UK banks believe that the regulatory regime we are putting in place in the UK has elements that are not compatible with the European regulatory regime? Will he take those comments very seriously and try to make sure that Britain’s banking sector is properly regulated and not incompatible with the European regime?
Mr Hoban
I have not seen in detail the comments made by the City of London corporation yesterday in evidence to the Treasury Committee, but I am determined that the regulatory reforms that we introduce will lead to a more stable and sustainable financial services sector—and a more stable and sustainable economy.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the test of any currency is in the tough times, not just the good ones? That was explained to all the countries that joined the euro, many of which, in my view, did so with their eyes wide shut. Is it not abhorrent that this liability, and the failure of the euro, should become a liability to the UK taxpayer at this time?
Mr Hoban
I do think that we have an interest in having a strong, stable eurozone and eurozone economy. Member states will reflect on the measures that need to be taken to strengthen the eurozone; that is part of the thinking behind some of the measures in the economic governance paper proposed by Herman Von Rompuy just a few months ago.
Points of Order
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you are aware that on 19 March 1997, the House passed a resolution that included various provisions, one of which is that it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, and another that Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and refuse to provide information only when disclosure is not in the public interest.
Yesterday evening for some hours, we debated whether the next general election should be held in 2015 or 2014. Of material relevance to that debate were the Government’s intentions in relation to the combining of polls in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with the general election in 2015. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), sat in the Chamber throughout the debate but said nothing until the very last moment at 9.30 pm, when he revealed that he intended to write to the devolved Administrations—I understand that that has already happened—to ask whether they would like a new power.
That materially affected every single aspect of yesterday afternoon’s debate. I believe not only that it was a gross discourtesy to the House for the Minister to have operated in that fashion, but that it offends directly the resolution of the House of 19 March 1997. He said that he will write to the devolved Administrations, and therefore relied on that for part of his argument. Will you, Mr Speaker, ensure that he makes all such letters available in the Library of the House? I realise that it is not within your power to tell him that we cannot have Report stage of the Bill until such time as amendments on elections can be tabled in the elected House—before they can be made in House of Lords—but can you look into whether there has been a breach of that resolution?
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that ordinarily—as he would expect—the precise contents of the resolution of 19 March 1997 are firmly imprinted on my mind almost as firmly as they are on his. Nevertheless, I am happy to refresh my memory on that matter.
On the face of it, however, I have a slight suspicion that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very assiduous parliamentarian, is continuing the debate. I am not saying that there is not something upon which I need rule, but that I am not clear whether there is. Ministers can speak when they wish in relation to those matters, including when winding up debates. I sense that the hon. Gentleman is extremely dissatisfied with ministerial silence when he expected a ministerial response. That may be a matter of a point of frustration, and there might even now and again be discourtesy, but it is not apparent to me as yet that there has been a breach of order.
I know how persistent a terrier the hon. Gentleman is, and I will look into the matter and revert to him, but I do not think that he needs to make another long point of order just yet.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
On this matter, the Deputy Leader of the House might be able to provide enlightenment.
Mr Heath
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would be the first to make a point of order had my hon. Friend the Minister released in writing something that should properly have been put before the House—as it was—by him in a debate on the relevant subject. I can think of no better illustration of the proper way for Ministers to behave in relation to the House.
Mr Speaker
I hope that colleagues will understand if I say that at this point, pending any further study, I feel confirmed in my suspicion by that exchange that we are having a continuation of the debate. That may be stimulating, but it is not really within the realms of points of order. Someone who I am sure knows about the realms of points of order on the strength of his 26 years’ service in the House is the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you for reminding me of that.
What happened last night was somewhat affected by the fact that the Minister’s statement came at the end of the debate. Would it not have been far more convenient and courteous to the House if he had made that announcement at the beginning of the debate? The announcement affected proceedings and the status of amendments that were not debated.
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that that may or may not be so, but unfortunately, it is not a matter of order. If he or other hon. Members are seeking to increase the powers of the Chair, they must find ways to do so—if he is asking whether I would strenuously resist, the answer is almost certainly no—but within the powers that I have, I cannot do anything about the matter other than to allow him, within limits, to expatiate, which is what he just did.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today we heard the Prime Minister pledge that the Government would stand ready to help the flood victims in Cornwall. That pledge is similar to one that he made to my constituents when we had a terrible gas explosion two weeks ago—200 households were evacuated, and a dozen people were injured, including one very seriously.
When I tried to follow up on the Prime Minister’s pledge to my constituents, his officials said that no help was forthcoming. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box in Prime Minister’s questions pledging the Government’s support to victims of explosions or floods when his officials have no intention whatever of offering any support?
Mr Speaker
Of course, action should always follow words, but if we were to establish that as a total precedent in the House, it would probably create some difficulty. The hon. Lady has put her thoughts very clearly on the record. It was not really a point of order, but she is a pretty ingenious Member, and I have a feeling that she will find other ways, in debate and questioning, to air her views on that subject. I look forward to her doing just that.
Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give powers to local planning authorities to specify the minimum distances permissible between onshore wind turbines of certain dimensions and the nearest habitation; and for connected purposes.
I am proud to be a Back-Bench Member of a Government who truly believe in localism and removing the top-down, centre-knows-best approach to government that grew out of hand in the past 13 years. Nowhere was that malignant approach more visible to the people who elect us than in how the previous Government forced their views on local areas and imposed massive changes on localities, such as large, controversial housing developments, or even more controversial wind farms.
My Bill would simply give local people and communities in areas where there are such wind farm proposals a real say on whether they take such developments. Numerous communities up and down the UK will be happy to take on such development, and I strongly believe that this Government’s approach of much more carrot, compared with the previous Government’s stick, will ensure that more proposals are passed.
I strongly contend that such developments should be allowed only when the local residents in the affected community have actually had a say—not just when they have been consulted—on the development that will change the nature of the place where they live. I also strongly contend that the best way to save so many communities up and down the country an enormous amount of strife, and at the same time save developers a reasonable amount of money, is to allow each local planning authority to set such minimum distances. Thus everyone will know exactly the state of play in each area.
That will hopefully eliminate the huge number of speculative proposals in areas where, under normal circumstances, it would be difficult to get planning permission even for a double garage. Many Members will know of the angst that is caused by proposals for massive turbines that are completely out of keeping with the local environment.
In my constituency, the usual height of a turbine applied for is 126.5 metres. Let me put that into perspective. The tower that supports Big Ben is 96.3 metres or 316 feet to the top of the spire. The London Eye is 135 metres tall. Those two structures dominate the local cityscape. Imagine what a number of structures twice the size of Nelson’s column situated close together do to the landscape in the rolling countryside of Northamptonshire or similar, but not quite as beautiful, parts of the country. If hon. Members consider that alongside the problems associated with flicker and noise from turbines, they will understand why local planning authorities are best placed to judge whether areas within their boundaries are suitable for such large-scale developments. Wind turbine operators say that if there is a minimum distance between turbines and dwellings—a distance of 2 km, say—there would be very few areas in the United Kingdom where turbines could be sited. That might be the case, but my Bill does not state what the minimum distance should be; it simply gives local planning authorities the opportunity to determine such distances—hopefully after consulting the people who live in an area—based on local knowledge and local conditions.
Many hon. Members feel the same way, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who have all followed me on this matter with great interest. In an Adjournment debate in October, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) reflected on the direction of current Government policy, saying:
“We have seen the benefits from offshore wind, but we recognise that communities often feel concerned that proposed wind farms in their areas will destroy the environment or have other negative impacts. We are convinced that, in the policy of localism that we are going to drive forward, local councils should be the driving force in deciding how they want their communities to develop. That is a fundamental part of the planning changes we are making.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 137WH.]
I would like to think that the Government will see this ten-minute rule Bill as a helpful nudge in the right direction, and perhaps even try to encompass it in the forthcoming localism Bill, and in doing so put some public confidence back into the planning system.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I agree with the commitment to localism shown by the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), and I suspect that there is barely a wafer between us on issues such as regional spatial strategies. However, I rise to oppose the Bill on the grounds that it is unnecessary, unwise and very unlikely to encourage the shift that we need in this country towards renewable energy. Instead, it runs the risk of feeding the irrational objections of a minority who have decided that wind power is bad and who will use almost any excuse to oppose it.
If hon. Members are in any doubt that this group is a minority, market research is remarkably consistent, with 70 to 80% of the UK population expressing support for wind, partly because wind turbines are probably the most beautiful and graceful form of energy generation, and because they are certainly prettier than the average nuclear power station—something that I understand the hon. Gentleman supports. Interestingly, support for wind power increases with proximity to wind farms. One piece of research showed that among people living near existing wind farms, support rose as high as 94%. That is entirely consistent with the experience in Denmark, which has the highest proportion of onshore wind and wind power in general, at nearly 20%, and the highest public support for wind power, at 93%. Indeed, that figure will probably increase as designs improve and wind turbines become quieter and possibly even more beautiful, as well as probably larger and more efficient.
The Bill is unnecessary because planning policy statement 22, which is already in force, says that local authorities already have the power to set minimum distances on a case-by-case basis. Paragraph 22 of the statement says quite clearly:
“Plans may include criteria that set out the minimum separation distances between different types of renewable energy projects and existing developments.”
Indeed, our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), whom I am pleased to see in his place, confirmed the position in a reply to the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley), saying:
“Under current planning policy distances between wind turbines and dwellings are decided on a case by case basis so that local factors can be taken fully into account. Local planning authorities are already able to set out the criteria they apply in assessing applications for renewable energy development in their local plans provided this does not rule out or place constraints on development without sufficient reasoned justification.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 544W.]
That seems to strike exactly the right balance between localism and our commitment to renewable energy. The Government’s localism Bill will, I hope, increase and enhance the freedom of local authorities to look at such matters freely, on a case-by-base basis. Bills such as this run the risk of undermining that by once again trying to get Parliament to hand policies to local authorities that they are better able to decide for themselves.
That is unwise, because blanket bans based on proximity are likely to lead to bad policy. If a ban had been in place in my constituency last year, it would almost certainly have prevented our very first wind turbine, which has been placed in Springfield park. It is much smaller than the ones that the hon. Member for Daventry talked about, but it is much closer to human habitation. A blanket rule might have prevented that wind turbine, which will now generate 9,500 kWh of electricity a year, save 4 tonnes of CO2 a year and shave £1,000 a year off the energy bill of the nearby neighbourhood project. If a borough-wide policy had been in place, it would have complicated the process. Presumably the hon. Gentleman might argue that the local community could have tried to overturn that policy, but if it could be overturned, what would be the point of having it in the first place?
There is also the unintended consequence that might result, which is that the more we restrict wind turbines near to human habitation, the more we encourage them in more rural and more sparsely populated areas. I can see the planning appeals now, in which somebody cites what would be known as the Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Act 2010 as evidence that a wind farm should go ahead in an area because it falls outside the set distances. The Bill might therefore have precisely the opposite effect from that intended by the hon. Gentleman.
I am sad to say that I suspect that the real purpose behind the Bill is probably to appeal to the anti-renewable lobby, which seems to be growing. I would have hoped that, in the new situation, both coalition parties had moved on from this kind of politics. We are intending to be the greenest Government ever, and the Bill would sit badly with that ambition. Luckily, as a ten-minute rule Bill, it has little chance of success, so I will not trouble the House with a Division. However, I remain opposed to the Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Heaton-Harris, Andrew Percy, Sarah Newton, Natascha Engel, Matthew Hancock, Nigel Adams, Karen Lumley, Alec Shelbrooke, Andrea Leadsom, Mark Pawsey, Mr Richard Bacon and Andrew Griffiths present the Bill.
Chris Heaton-Harris accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 June 2011, and to be printed (Bill 108).
Opposition Day
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS Reorganisation
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government is pursuing a reform agenda in health that represents an ideological gamble with successful services and has failed to honour the pledges made in the Coalition Agreement to provide real-terms increases each year to health funding; further believes that the Government is failing to honour its pledge in the Coalition Agreement by forcing the NHS in England through a high-cost, high-risk internal reorganisation as set out in the health White Paper; is concerned that the combination of a real cut to funding for NHS healthcare and the £3 billion reorganisation planned by the Secretary of State for Health will put the NHS under great pressure and that services to patients will suffer; supports the aims of increasing clinician involvement and improving patient care, but is concerned that the Government’s plans will lead to a less consistent, reliable and responsive health service for patients which is also more inefficient, secretive and fragmented; and calls on the Secretary of State for Health to listen to the warnings from patients’ groups, health professionals and NHS experts and to rethink and put the White Paper reforms on hold, so that in this period of financial constraint the efforts of all in the NHS can be dedicated to improving patient care and making sound efficiency savings that are reused for frontline NHS services.
The motion is set in similar terms to the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Education Secretary, which we will debate a little later. That is because in both health and education we are seeing many of the same broken funding promises, much of the same free market ideology, many of the same problems of big changes forced through without considering or caring about the consequences, and many of the same risks that the poorest and most vulnerable will lose out and that comprehensive, consistent public services will be broken up. Beyond the spending cuts, we are starting to see the pattern of what public service reform means in Tory terms.
The Prime Minister told Britain before the election:
“We are the only party committed to protecting NHS spending.”
In his coalition agreement with the Deputy Prime Minister, he went further, saying:
“We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of…Parliament”.
The Government whom the Prime Minister leads are now breaking the promises that he made to the British people. The Secretary of State has been caught out double-counting £1 billion in the spending review as both money for the NHS and money to paper over the cracks in social care. Let me quote from a Library research paper, which confirms:
“Including the (social care) funding is critical to the description of the settlement as a ‘real terms increase’; without it, funding for the NHS falls by £500 million—0.54% in real terms.”
There we have it—the facts in the figures. There is no real-terms rise in NHS funding, but a real-terms cut over this Parliament by this Government—[Interruption.]
The Secretary of State says “Nonsense” from a sedentary position. If he wants to deny the figures in the Green Book, deny the report in the Library research paper, and take issue with the Nuffield Trust, who all say the same, he should do so. He should by all means take credit for funding social care, but he should not double-count the credit by including it for both NHS funding and social care funding.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I do indeed deny that. It is very simple. The total NHS budget will rise in real terms. Resource funding will rise by 1.3% in real terms over four years. Even if the money to be transferred to local authorities were taken out, that is an increase in resource funding for the NHS in real terms.
The right hon. Gentleman must consider that if a health service buys rehabilitation for patients returning home after being in hospital so that they do not need another emergency hospital admission, or puts telehealth in someone’s home so that their independence at home is maintained, that is health spending. It is the normal approach of the NHS to providing preventive services.
John Healey
There is a good case for more funding in social care, but the truth is, as Age UK says, that in this Parliament it will be cut by an average of 7% in real terms. Social care may help the health service, but if money is spent on social care, it is not spent on NHS services, and it cannot be double-counted as NHS funding. When that is taken into account, and when the Secretary of State stops fiddling the figures, we see that the country and the NHS will get a real-terms cut, not a real-terms rise during this Parliament.
Mr Lansley
I have a simple question for the right hon. Gentleman. Is he in favour of the budget that we announced for the NHS, and does he wish to spend more or less?
John Healey
My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in response to the Chancellor’s spending review:
“We support moves to ring-fence the”
NHS
“budget”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 968.]
People saw Labour’s big investment in the NHS bring big improvements—50,000 extra doctors, 98,000 more nurses, deaths from cancer and heart disease at an all-time recorded low, the number of patients waiting more than six months for operations in hospital down from more than 250,000 in 1997 to just 28 in February this year, and more than nine in 10 patients rating their experience of hospital care as good, very good or excellent.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the UK is still floundering in the lower divisions of the international cancer league on survival rates?
John Healey
We still have a lot further to go. There have been big improvements in international comparisons, but we must go further. It beggars belief that the Government have decided not to press ahead with plans to give patients a guarantee of, for example, receiving test results within one week, especially as hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the importance of early diagnosis for cancer, and the cancer specialist, Mike Richards, said that this contribution to early diagnosis could save 10,000 lives a year.
Instead of building on those great gains, I fear that the NHS will again go backwards under this Tory-led Government. It is already showing signs of strain. The number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks for diagnostic tests has trebled since last year, 27,000 front-line staff jobs are being cut, and two thirds of maternity wards are so short-staffed that the Royal College of Midwives says that mothers and babies cannot be properly cared for.
This is not what people expected when they heard the Prime Minister say that he would protect NHS funding. In fairness, a proper, long-term perspective is needed on NHS financing. Year-on-year funding just below or even 0.1% above inflation is way short of the 4% average increase that the NHS has had over its 60 years. During the last Labour decade, it averaged 7% in real terms.
There are, and have been for many years, built-in pressures on the NHS: the cost of staff, drugs and equipment rises by about 1.5% above general inflation, and the demands of our growing and ageing population adds £1 billion to the bill each year just to deliver the same services.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman omitted from his list any mention of the escalating costs of administration in the NHS. Does he agree with us that what is really important is to reduce the cost of administration?
John Healey
The hon. Lady is right, and there is plenty of scope to do that. We recognised that, and we had plans to take out many of the managerial costs. I will come to that later, but it is hard to understand how creating three or even four times as many GP consortiums doing the same job as primary care trusts is likely to reduce rather than increase bureaucracy in the NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh says that in Wigan there is one PCT, but it is set to have six GP consortiums. The same job will be done six times over in the same area. How is that a cut, or an improvement in the bureaucratic overheads and costs of the NHS?
In the spending review, the NHS is set for the biggest efficiency squeeze ever. On 12 October, the NHS chief executive, David Nicholson, told the Health Committee:
“It is huge. You don’t need me to tell you that it has never been done before in the NHS context and we don’t think, when you look at health systems across the world, that anyone has quite done it on this scale before.”
Money is tight, and something must happen, but that can be done by building on Labour’s big improvements in the NHS over the last decade. It will be tough, but I will back the Government, as long as all savings are reused for better front-line services to patients.
Mr Lansley
Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, may I remind him that the “it” that Sir David Nicholson was talking about was the achievement of between £15 billion and £20 billion of efficiency savings, which is a substantial improvement in productivity that is expected over the next four years? That is in complete contrast with a Labour Government who had declining productivity over the whole of the last decade. The efficiency savings of £15 billion to £20 billion that Sir David was talking about were set out by the last Labour Government in late 2009. We are continuing with that, but we will make it happen, and Labour did not.
John Healey
I have read David Nicholson’s transcripts, and he was indeed talking about £15 billion to £20 billion of efficiency savings, which were not achieved, as the Secretary of State said, but planned. That is a big test for the NHS, and it will be more difficult because of his plans for reorganisation, which I will come to.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
As I was at the evidence session, I can confirm that Sir David Nicholson was clearly talking about the challenging £15 billion to £20 billion savings, which I would have thought the whole House approved of and agreed should be achieved. But the right hon. Gentleman was right to say that Sir David was also talking about their being achieved in the context of the proposed changes in the White Paper.
John Healey
Of course Sir David was talking about the two together, because the Select Committee was understandably probing both matters. In the quote that I gave, he was talking about the significant efficiency savings required of the health service at this time of an unprecedented financial squeeze. Many would say that that is the toughest financial test in the NHS’s history.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
John Healey
Of course I will give way to the Chairman of the Health Committee.
Mr Dorrell
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Sir David was talking about the £15 billion to £20 billion efficiency challenge, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that programme has its roots in the time of the last Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his party still supports the QIPP challenge—quality, improvement, productivity, prevention—that was first articulated when his right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Secretary of State?
John Healey
If the right hon. Gentleman reads the official record, he will see I have just said that I will back plans to get the efficiency savings out of the NHS. They are needed and they have to happen, and I will back them as long as all the savings are reused for front-line services to patients.
Faced with the toughest test in its history, the least NHS patients and staff can expect is that the Government keep their funding promise. At this time of all times, the last thing the NHS needs is a big internal reorganisation. The Prime Minister ruled out such a reorganisation before the election, saying:
“With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS”.
The right hon. Gentleman, now the Secretary of State, ruled it out, saying that the NHS
“needs no more top-down reorganisations”.
The coalition agreement was clear and reassuring on this point. In it, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister pledged:
“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care”.
That was before the Secretary of State’s White Paper plans, which the head of the King’s Fund has called
“the biggest organisational upheaval in the health service, probably since its inception”.
Promise made in May, broken in July. Promise made by the Prime Minister, broken by the Secretary of State.
There is a story doing the rounds in the media of a journalist being briefed by No. 10, early on the morning of the publication of the White Paper, and told
“there’s nothing much new in it.”
When did the Secretary of State tell the Prime Minister that he was breaking his promise? When did he tell the Prime Minister that he was not only breaking the Government’s promise but forcing the NHS through the biggest reorganisation in its history, with a £3 billion bill attached, at a time when all efforts should be dedicated to achieving sound efficiencies and improving care for patients? This is high cost and high risk; it is untested and unnecessary.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Public Accounts Committee has identified that improving integration and co-ordination of services for the 580,000 people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis would deliver efficiency savings on the annual £560 million bill faced by the NHS each year for this care. The National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society believes, however, that the new commissioning responsibilities outlined in the White Paper
“risk increasing fragmentation in services”
and reducing savings overall. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
John Healey
In a way it does not matter whether I agree; it matters much more that the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and many other patients groups are deeply concerned about this.
It is not just patients groups but professional bodies and NHS experts who are worried. Even the GPs are not convinced, and they are meant to be the winners in all this. They are meant to be the ones planning, buying and managing the rest of the NHS’s services. A King’s Fund survey carried out last month found that fewer than one in four GPs believe that the plans will improve patient care, and only one in five believe that the NHS will be able to maintain the focus on efficiency at the same time.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
In my constituency, we have been holding one-to-one dialogues with GPs, particularly about the White Paper, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman with total confidence that well over 65% of the GPs I have met—it is only 65% because I have not managed to meet all of them—have endorsed the removal of the PCTs, from which they felt remote and disjointed and from which they felt they were getting poor value for money.
John Healey
If two thirds of the GPs the hon. Gentleman met are in favour, one third are obviously not convinced, but they will be forced to do this anyway. That is part of the problem, and I will come to that in a moment.
It is no wonder that the head of the NHS Confederation, the body that is there for those who run the NHS, told the Health Committee last month that
“there is a very, very significant risk associated with the project”.
Even the Secretary of State’s right-wing supporters in the Civitas think-tank tell him that he is wrong. They have said:
“The NHS is facing the most difficult…time in its history. Now is not the time for ripping up internal structures yet again on scant evidence”.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest. I know his moderate views on many things, but he misrepresented what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) said about the numbers of GPs. Now that targets and top-down management—the centrepiece of the last Labour Government’s policies—are being discarded even by those on the right hon. Gentleman’s own Front Bench, does he not agree that giving significant freedoms to front-line professionals is a better way forward?
John Healey
Yes, of course; we had been doing that for some years before the election and we had plans to do it after the election, but the fact is that we did not win the election, and the Secretary of State is in power now. He is making the decisions and he is the one who is entrusted with the future of our NHS. He is the one who needs to answer to the House for his plans.
The problem with broken promises is worse than I have already suggested. The coalition agreement promised:
“The local PCT will act as a champion for patients and commission those residual services that are best undertaken at a wider level, rather than directly by GPs.”
The Secretary of State’s plans will do precisely the opposite. He is abolishing the PCTs, not building on the best of what they do.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
There is a great deal of talk about reducing bureaucracy and administration, but PCT staff work on issues such as NHS treatment for people with learning disabilities. Ministers have talked about that role continuing, but will those staff not be really worried about their futures now? They will be looking around, and if they see another job, they are not going to wait two years; they are going to jump now, and the PCTs will lose that expertise. It will drain away and the PCTs will be unable to carry out all those important residual functions.
John Healey
This is precisely why those who understand the health service, including those who run it, say that it is going to be so hard, at a time when the NHS has never faced such a tough financial challenge, to see through the biggest reorganisation in its history at breakneck speed.
Whether on funding, reorganisation or the role of the PCTs, the Secretary of State is doing precisely the opposite of what was set out in the coalition agreement. He is running a rogue Department with a freelance policy franchise, in isolation from his Government colleagues. He claimed on the “Today” programme yesterday that he had been saying all this for four years before the election. So when did he tell people, and when did he tell the Prime Minister, that GPs will be given £80 billion of taxpayers’ money—twice the budget of the Ministry of Defence—to spend? When did he tell people that, in place of 150 primary care trusts, there could be up to three times as many GP consortiums doing the same job? When did he tell people that GP consortiums will make decisions in secret and file accounts to the Government only at the end of the year?
When did the Secretary of State tell people, and the Prime Minister, that nurses, hospital consultants, midwives, physiotherapists and other NHS professionals will all be cut out of care commissioning decisions completely? And when did he tell the Prime Minister that hospitals will be allowed to go bust before being broken up, if a buyer can be found for them? When did he tell people that NHS patients will wait longer, while hospitals profit from no limit on their use of NHS beds and NHS staff for private patients? When did he tell people that lowest price will beat best care, because GPs will be forced to use any willing provider? When did he tell people that essential NHS services will be protected only by a competition regulator, similar to those for gas, water and electricity? And when did he say that he was creating a national health service that opens the door for big private health care companies to move in?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is generous in giving way. It is never an ideal thing to quote yourself, but let me risk doing so:
“We have been clear about the need for improvement in the NHS: responsive to patient choice; where budgets are in the hands of GPs; where hospitals are set free; where professionals are released from targets and bureaucracy; where the independent sector has a right to supply to the NHS; where competition delivers efficiency; and where patients have the assurance that NHS standards of care are based on the founding principle of the NHS—free at the point of use and not based on the ability to pay.”
I said that in a letter to The Daily Telegraph on 10 March 2006—four years ago.
John Healey
The real question is why the right hon. Gentleman, if he had these plans, did not tell the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister when they were writing the coalition agreement what he wanted to do on funding, on reorganisation and on the role of primary care trusts. Why did he allow his Government to make these pledges to the British public in May and then break their promises two months later in the White Paper? Whatever the boss of Tribal health care says about the private health care companies, he described the White Paper as
“the denationalisation of healthcare services”.
He went on to say that
“this white paper could result in the biggest transfer of employment out of the public sector since the significant reforms seen in the 1980s.”
This is not what people expected when they heard the Prime Minister tell the Conservative conference last month that the NHS would be protected.
Andrew George
It is incontrovertible that the White Paper contradicts the coalition agreement in respect of top-down reorganisation, but I think we would accept the right hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of top-down manipulation of local services a great deal more if he were prepared to accept that the previous Government failed in their attempt to reorganise through independent treatment centres or alternative providers of medical services which were massively expensive and did not necessarily provide better services on the ground. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that the previous Government failed in that regard?
John Healey
The treatment centres, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, helped contribute to bringing waiting times down to 18 weeks and helped to say to the British public, “Whatever treatment you need in hospital, you will not have to wait more than 18 weeks for it.” That was a consistent universal promise that we were able to make to patients as a guarantee for the future. That has now been ripped up, and we can see the result as waiting times and waiting lists lengthen. As I said at the start of my speech, my fear is that during this period of Tory leadership, we will see the NHS going backwards.
As for the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), I understand his problem. He is a Liberal Democrat and I have to say that this health policy bears very little of the Liberal Democrat imprint. The one part of the Liberal health manifesto that they managed to get into the coalition agreement was this:
“We will ensure there is a stronger voice for patients locally through… elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust”.
Within two months, of course, that was not even worth the coalition agreement paper it was written on.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something else that the Government are not telling us—namely, the huge cost of getting rid of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities in respect of redundancy and getting out of broken contracts? Does he, like me, speculate that many of the people affected will end up working for GP consortiums or private health care firms—a huge cost to the public purse that delivers not one iota of front-line care?
John Healey
Quite so. Estimates of the cost of the reorganisation are up to £3 billion, but we have not had any cost announcements from this Government, who will not tell us how much is going to be spent on reorganisation rather than on patient care. At a time when finances are tight, this is precisely the wrong prescription for the NHS over the next few years.
It is no wonder that GPs have grave doubts—they trained as family doctors, not as accountants or procurement managers, and they are committed to treating patients, not doing deals over contracts. However, they will be forced to commission services, whether they like it or not; they will make rationing decisions, not just referral decisions for their patients; and they will have to take on the deficits or inbuilt funding shortfalls in their PCT areas. GPs spend an average of eight or nine minutes with each patient. If they plan, negotiate, manage and monitor commissioning contracts in future, they will have no time left to see patients. If they continue to be family doctors, commissioning will be done for them, not by them; it will be done in their name by many of the same PCT managers who presently do the job or by commercial companies that have already started hard-selling their services to GPs. The other day I picked up “The Essential Guide to GP Commissioning” helpfully published by United Health—one of the biggest US-based health care companies in the world.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that not all GPs will have to be involved with commissioning? Does he welcome the efforts of the Royal College of General Practitioners to introduce real clinical leadership and tuition for those GPs interested in taking up commissioning, helping them to provide this service?
John Healey
It is a very good thing that the Royal College of General Practitioners is trying to bring the skills of many GPs up to speed because this is a big job for which GPs are not trained and not equipped, and which many do not want to do.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we had GP fundholders during the previous Conservative Government, and the doctors managed the budgets all right and increased choice for patients?
John Healey
The GP fundholding experiment took place in a completely different context—within an NHS that still had an area-based plan and still had bodies accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament. In the end, however, it did not work and we stopped it.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is some kind of ideological disagreement going on in his own mind, given that the last Labour Government did exactly the same thing to head teachers by bringing alternative providers into schools and giving them control over budgets and what services to deliver? Our proposals for GPs are exactly the same—aiming to put in charge the professionals who deliver services and have contact with the people who use them.
John Healey
I thought the hon. Gentleman was in his place at the start of the debate. In that case, he will have heard me say that one reason for having an Opposition day debate on both health and education is that we see many of the same ideological fingerprints over the plans for education and for health. These are Tory ideological fingerprints, and I hope that this will become clearer as the debate progresses.
Let us make no mistake: if these changes go ahead, patients will rightly question whether GPs’ decisions are about the best treatment for them or about the best interest of the GP budget and consortium business. The public will find “commercial in confidence” stamped over many of the most important decisions taken about our NHS services. Members of Parliament wanting to hold Ministers to account in future when hospitals go bust, there are no contracted services for constituents or there is a serious failure in the system will be told, “It’s nothing to do with me”.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Was the right hon. Gentleman perfectly happy about the situation under the last Government? When anyone complained in this Chamber about anything happening in their local health economy, they were told rather piously by a Minister that it was a matter for local decision making by a quango that was completely unelected and beyond their control. In what sense were the PCTs in any sense accountable?
John Healey
Part of the problem is that there is so little detail in the White Paper that we simply cannot see how the bodies taking big decisions about taxpayers’ money will be accountable to the public. I lost count of the number of times during the last Government when Health Ministers came to this House and to Westminster Hall and had meetings with Members in order to respond to and sort out the problems that their constituents were experiencing with NHS services.
What the Secretary of State says he wants from the White Paper plan is to put patients first, to improve health care outcomes, to cut bureaucracy and to improve efficiency. These are “motherhood and apple pie” aims. We can support his aims, but we cannot support the action he is taking or the breakneck speed with which he is forcing these changes on the NHS. He wants shadow GP consortiums to be in place by April, and he will remove primary care trusts entirely two years after that. What he is doing is rushed and reckless. Almost every respondent to the White Paper has warned of the risks and said, “Slow down.”
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the Health Committee was told by health service organisations that some London PCTs would close by March 2011? Is anything happening in that regard? We know that there was a suggestion that PCTs would close in 2012, but we heard for the first time yesterday that they might close in 2011.
John Healey
I am very concerned if those plans are being speeded up rather than slowed down, because that would be entirely contrary to the view that has been consistently expressed by patients groups, experts in the NHS and professional bodies in response to the consultation on the White Paper. “Too far, too fast,” says the King’s Fund. According to the NHS Confederation:
“It will be exceptionally difficult to deliver major structural change and make £20 billion of efficiency savings at the same time.”
The Alzheimer’s Society says:
“The pace of structural change has the potential to undermine the progress made in services for people with dementia and their families, unless handled carefully”.
Almost every other group representing patients says the same. Even the chief executive of the NHS has written to the Secretary of State saying:
“Implementing the White Paper will require us to strike the right balance between developing early momentum for change and allowing enough time to properly test the new arrangements. Getting this balance right will be critical to maintaining quality and safety”.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not have a policy of his own, but the motion seems to be saying, “It’s all become a bit difficult, so let’s just put it off.” Until when exactly does he propose to put these changes off? Will they be made in the current Parliament, in the next Parliament, or 10 years down the line?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but he and his party are in government now. One of the frustrations for me and for other Labour Members is that his party is making the decisions, and is responsible for the future of the health service. Our plans would be different, but this is what the Government are planning.
The Secretary of State has received the responses that I have quoted. He has been advised to listen, to slow down, and not to risk the future of the NHS in his consultation. However, he is not listening. I hope that the Prime Minister is listening, for the sake of the NHS, its patients and staff, and for the sake of us all.
Here is a “thought for the day” for the Prime Minister. The Tories worked hard to be trusted by the public with the NHS before the election. The Government’s reckless big-bang reorganisation at a time of tough financial pressures in the NHS will wreck their reputation, but that is the Prime Minister’s problem. My problem is that he is set to wreck the great NHS gains made for patients over the last decade, and to wreck the founding principle of our NHS: that it should be available equally to all, free at the point of need, and properly funded through general taxation. We on the Labour side of the House will not allow him to do that.
I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Some 15 Members are seeking to participate in the debate. Mr Speaker has therefore decided that there will be a seven-minute time limit on speeches after the Secretary of State has spoken. I remind Members that they do not have to speak for as long as seven minutes; seven minutes is the maximum. If they bear that in mind and are considerate to other Members, it may be possible for everyone to contribute.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I will ask the House to reject the motion.
As I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) I was very disappointed, because it seemed to be all about primary care trusts rather than about patients, all about managers rather than about doctors and nurses, and all about processes rather than about outcomes. It was completely the opposite of what the White Paper sets out to do, which is to give patients control of health care and allow more shared decision making for patients.
The White Paper is all about focusing on improving health care outcomes, and about empowering the doctors and nurses who work in the health service and recognising the contribution that they make. I am really disappointed that the Opposition motion does not recognise fully, as it should, the role that should be played by patients and staff in the NHS. I advise the right hon. Gentleman, when he tables motions such as this, always to think more about the staff of the NHS and the patients whom they look after, and less about the managers and the processes.
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes, but let me tell him this. Fighting a campaign called “Save the primary care trusts” will cut no ice with the people of this country. Fighting a campaign to save our NHS is what we did in the last Parliament; we did it successfully, and now that we are in government, saving the NHS is exactly what we are going to do.
John Healey
If the Secretary of State—who, I concede, has a six-and-a-half-year head start on me in this job—really cared about NHS patients, really cared about NHS staff and really cared about NHS services, he would not be putting the NHS through the biggest reorganisation in its history, especially at this time. As I said earlier, it is patients groups and bodies representing NHS staff who are saying, “Slow down—think again.” I urge the Secretary of State to do that today, and to rethink.
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman has just taken to heart the old saying that the job of the Opposition is to oppose. That is all he is doing: he is simply opposing. Nothing in his motion states positively what should be done, whether that is supporting NHS staff or listening to patients and giving them the shared decision making opportunity that is so essential. While opposing the reforms that we in the coalition Government are introducing, he seems to have ignored the simple fact that those reforms, in truth, represent the coherent consistent working out, in practice, of policies that were initiated, but never properly implemented, by the Government of whom he was a member. They are not revolutionary, as he has called them.
Andrew George
As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said earlier, the seventh point in the coalition agreement begins with the words:
“We will ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust…The remainder of the PCT’s board will be appointed by the relevant local authority or authorities”.
Was the Secretary of State consulted before those words were included in the agreement? If he was, what changed his mind between the drawing up of the agreement and the White Paper?
Mr Lansley
The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that we in the coalition Government collectively took the sensible view that form must follow function. If we arrived at a point at which people were being elected to primary care trusts which themselves no longer had a substantive role to play, because public health was rightly being transferred to local authorities—
Mr Lansley
We did know that at the time. [Interruption.] I will not engage in a conversation with the hon. Lady when she is intervening from a sedentary position. I am replying to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George).
If we arrived at that point—a point at which GP-led commissioning consortiums were rightly leading on the commissioning of health care services—we would then find ourselves suggesting the election of people to a body that did not exercise any substantive responsibilities.
We therefore made a collective decision not to implement the policy in that way. The principle that we were pursuing was the strengthening of local democratic legitimacy in relation to health care—and, for that matter, social care—and that is exactly what we are going to do. We are going to do it through the health and well-being boards, and through the local authorities that are directly responsible for the provision of health improvement plans in their areas, engaging directly with local GP consortiums in the strategic commissioning functions and increasingly integrating health and social care.
Let me return to the point that I was making to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne. He ought to recognise, but does not seem to understand, that when I was announcing our intentions in 2006, the Government of whom he was a member were saying that these were the reforms that they wished to pursue. Tony Blair made a speech in June 2006 in which he said that NHS reform should be based on patient choice, independent sector providers, general practice-led commissioning and foundation trusts, yet the right hon. Gentleman’s motion today has left all that out. All those things that the Labour Government once supported, he, in opposition, now opposes.
The right hon. Gentleman’s motion is notable for what it has left out: it has left out the call for patient information and choice; it has left out any reference to the need for improving health outcomes; and it has left out a recognition, which the House should always reiterate, of the commitment of health and social care staff to the patients they care for. Particularly tellingly, it has also left out any indication of whether Labour supports or opposes our health service spending plans.
The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has left the Chamber, but before the spending review he said to us, “Don’t protect the NHS budget; cut the NHS budget and transfer it to social care.” We did not do that; we did not do what the Labour party suggested. Instead, we have both protected the NHS budget and supported social care.
Before the election, the Labour Administration said, “Cut NHS capital budgets by 50%,” but the real-terms reduction in NHS capital budgets will be just 17%. They said, “Protect the primary care trust budgets but cut central budgets; cut research and development in the NHS; cut education and training,” but we are not doing that. We are protecting the resource funding for the NHS, and it will increase in real terms.
Mr Lansley
I will give way to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) first, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett).
Barbara Keeley
The Secretary of State talks about protecting social care, but he must be aware that at the same time cuts of 28% are being made to local council budgets, of which social services and social care account for the largest component. Even before the comprehensive spending review, six or seven councils were already saying their situation was moving from moderate to substantial, and for one council that has now risen from substantial to critical—and that is before the Government implement their cuts of 28%. There is no such protection in place, therefore. Instead, this radical NHS reorganisation is happening at the same time as those huge council budget cuts, and next year will be terrible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was right to protect social care, as well as in the other things that he did with the NHS.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady is simply completely wrong. Local government budgets are not being cut by the figure she cites. The formula grant from central Government is having to be cut because of the debt we inherited from Labour, although she, like the rest of her party, is in denial about that, but that does not mean a cut—
Mr Lansley
No; I am addressing the point that the hon. Lady made. That cut in formula grant does not mean a corresponding cut in council tax, so that revenue is available to local authorities. In addition, the NHS is going to support social care activity in the ways I have described, such as through telehealth, re-ablement and equipment adaptations. We are transferring the learning disability transfer grant and other adult social care grants collectively representing £2.7 billion a year from the NHS to local authority funding, without reductions in those grants. I am afraid the hon. Lady is just simply wrong, therefore.
Mr Evennett
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to improve our national health service, and on the initiatives that he is proposing. However, does he agree that in enabling the NHS and social care services to work more closely together, it is vital to have integrated cost-effective services, and make sure that the patients get the best out of the system?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and I are very impressed that the local NHS and local authorities are, sometimes for the first time, sitting down together and discussing how they can use their resources. Even this year we managed to save £70 million from the budget that we inherited from the Labour party. That money can be invested in re-ablement, and in bringing local authorities and the NHS together to improve the service to people who are going home.
Mr Lansley
I want to make a little progress first.
The Opposition motion reveals that they have no alternative vision. The Labour party today is empty of ideas, confused and incoherent. It did not have anything to offer the country at the general election, and it has nothing to offer today. I will deal with each of the points made by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, but first I want to say something about what we are doing through the White Paper, and why we are doing it.
We should be proud of the fundamental values of the NHS: that it is free at the point of use, and that it is based on need and not on the ability to pay. Nothing that we do will ever undermine those principles; that is the coalition Government’s commitment. However, our pride in these values is no excuse for complacency. The demands facing the NHS over the coming decades are many: an increasing and ageing population; continued advances in medicine and technology; and rising expectations on the part of patients and the public. That is why, as we maintain equity in access to services, we will also pursue excellence in health care. We will do so because despite the great improvements in the NHS in the past—such as in cardiac surgery and cardiology, and, more recently, in stroke care and many cancer services—we have much more still to do.
Outcomes for patients in this country are too often poor in comparison with outcomes in other countries: someone in this country is twice as likely to die from a heart attack as someone in France; survival rates for cervical, colorectal and breast cancers in this country are among the worst in the OECD; and premature mortality rates from respiratory disease are worse than the EU-15 average. Simply putting more money into the system has not worked, which is why reform is needed.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He has argued the need for greater localism and for local health services to be more accountable to local people. However, pulmonary hypertension is one condition in which significant advances have been made in recent years. It affects a number of my constituents but it is a rare condition, and has to be managed not locally but on a country-wide—indeed, often a Wales and England and Scotland-wide—basis. How can the Secretary of State make sure that, with the pressure towards local services, proper account is also taken of conditions on which action can be delivered only on a national basis?
Mr Lansley
For England, the White Paper sets out very clearly that specialised commissioning, whether currently regional or national, will be undertaken through the NHS commissioning board, rather than by individual commissioning consortiums.
The point about the reform process is that if we change nothing, nothing will change. The Labour party is the party of no change: it is the party of stasis, inertia and inactivity. Labour says, “Do nothing, put the reforms on hold”—whatever that means. Our aim is a simple one. We cannot stand still. If we carry on as we are, resources will, as over the last decade, be consumed without delivering the improved outcomes for patients that are so essential. Delivering improved outcomes for patients is our objective, and the White Paper gives us a clear and consistent vision for achieving that, based on three guiding principles.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Margot James
The Secretary of State was discussing the disappointing cancer survival rates. A National Cancer Intelligence Network survey was conducted earlier this week, and I was shocked to learn that it found that one in four cancers were diagnosed only when a patient was rushed to hospital experiencing symptoms. Does the Secretary of State think ring-fencing the public health budget and co-ordinating it better with local authorities will enable us to make a swifter impact in respect of the preventive aspects of cancer management, in order to reduce that figure?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I feel that it should. When the NHS last came under financial pressure in 2005-06, public health budgets were cut and public health staff were lost, but we are determined to address the worrying situation that my hon. Friend described. That is why we are committed to the implementation of a cancer signs and symptoms campaign. It will be launched in the new year, and its purpose is precisely to ensure that we tackle the lack of awareness of cancer symptoms, so that people will present to their GP earlier and we can bring them to diagnosis sooner.
Mr Lansley
I said I would give way to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), if he still wishes to intervene.
Frank Dobson
The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to improve treatment. How does he think the treatment of sick children at Great Ormond Street hospital will be improved if it has to do without the £16 million that his Government are currently threatening to take away?
Mr Lansley
I explained to the right hon. Gentleman at Health questions just a fortnight ago that we are in discussions with the specialist children’s hospitals. They are very clear that they are engaging constructively with the Department, with the intention that the payments through the tariff should accurately reflect the costs incurred in providing specialist services. That is the current situation, and no decision has yet been made.
I was talking about the principles of the White Paper.
Mr Lansley
In a moment; the right hon. Gentleman must allow me to make some progress.
I was talking about the principles of the White Paper. They are very clear. First, patients should be at the heart of the new national service, with a simple principle of “No decision about me without me” transforming the relationship between citizen and service.
Secondly, we will focus on outcomes, not processes. We will focus on outcomes that capture the entirety of patient care, and quality standards and indicators that genuinely reflect what a high-quality service should actually deliver. We will orientate the NHS towards focusing on what really matters to patients, not narrow processes. Thirdly, we will empower clinicians, freeing them from bureaucracy and centralised top-down controls, so that change is genuinely driven from the grass roots, rather than driven, top-down, from above.
The right hon. Gentleman’s speech did not appear to recognise that central principle at all when he talked about people in the NHS Confederation and the managers who run the NHS. Clinicians are already the people who actually do the commissioning: general practitioners make the referrals and write the prescriptions, and consultants in hospitals make referrals from one consultant to another. In effect, cost and commissioning in the NHS is already controlled by clinicians, but they are divorced from the processes of combining the management of patient care with the management of resources. Whether in this country or in others around the world, it is perfectly clear that that divide is what breaks health care systems. What makes health care systems more effective is bringing together the management of patient care with the management of commissioning and resources on behalf of patients.
John Healey
I wanted to intervene to discuss what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said about Great Ormond Street hospital. I have the official record of what was said at Health questions, to which the Secretary of State referred. He said that the proposal would have
“the overall effect of reducing Great Ormond Street’s total income by less than 2%.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 754.]
How does he reconcile that with the trust’s figures, which say that the reduction will not be less than 2%, but will be more than 5.5%? Would he like, therefore, to correct the official record now? Will he also publish the figures so that this House and Members who represent these areas can make up their own minds about whether those big stealth cuts to the hospitals that treat many of our most critically ill kids are a good idea?
Mr Lansley
No, I will not do those things, because what I said was accurate. The specialist children’s hospitals and ourselves are engaged in a constructive process of discussion about the future of the tariff for those hospitals and the top-up. Until a proposal is made there is no purpose in informing the House. We will inform the House as soon as we are in a position to say what the tariff for next year looks like.
Mr Baron
I totally commend the Government for their focus on cancer reform and improving outcomes. I accept that this is in the melting pot at the moment, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the one-year and five-year cancer survival rate figures are presented not as a league table but as a performance table, to ensure that all primary care trusts and GP consortiums are tasked with improving performance, irrespective of how they compare with others?
Mr Lansley
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. What we are looking for is not a league table at all, as health care should not be regarded in that way; we are looking for proper benchmarking to take place. We are going to benchmark this country’s performance against that of the best health care systems around the world—the Labour party never did that—and we are going to ensure that there is a culture of continuous improvement in the NHS in respect of both the one-year and the five-year cancer survival rates, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned.
The reforms that I was talking about are not a radical departure from the past. The principles of the White Paper should be what the NHS has always been about, but it has been distracted too often by the bureaucratic processes that the Labour party was always supporting. Let me make it clear that many of the things that we are doing were championed by former Labour Ministers. When John Reid was Health Secretary he championed patient choice, and we know why. His view was, rightly, that in the NHS, in a bureaucratic system, the articulate middle classes get access to the best health care, and it is only through institutionalising and embedding patient choice—shared decision making for every patient—that we will ensure that the most disadvantaged in society get the right access to health care.
As for GP-led commissioning, the Labour party was supposed to have introduced practice-based commissioning.
Mr Lansley
I am not giving way, so the hon. Lady must sit down. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State is indicating that he is not giving way, and that is his choice.
Mr Lansley
Not only is it my choice, but it is a necessity. As you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, 15 Members wish to speak in the debate, and they will be allowed only seven minutes. I shall therefore take less time than the shadow Secretary of State did.
The Labour Administration pursued practice-based commissioning. Labour Members now make up numbers about how many GP-led commissioning consortiums there will be, but under practice-based commissioning there are 909 practice-based commissioning consortiums. The Labour Government did not give them any power, but they established them and they all have costs associated with them; there are 152 primary care trusts. Bureaucracy and cost in the system is legion, and we have to take it out; we have to reduce the number of people.
Under the Labour Administration the number of managers and senior managers in the NHS doubled. Where was the corresponding improvement in outcomes? The number of nurses increased by only 27%. That shows the kind of distorted priorities that were at the heart of the previous Government. They said that all NHS trusts should be foundation trusts by December 2008, but they simply did not bring that about; we are going to make it happen. They set up the idea of a right to request for staff in PCTs in provider services to become social enterprises, but we are the ones who are now bringing that about. Yesterday, I was able to announce 32 more social enterprises in the NHS, where staff are taking responsibility and ownership of the service that they provide, representing 15,000 additional staff and more than £500 million of revenue. If the Labour party is now against all the reforms that used to be part of the process of delivering greater empowerment of staff and patients in the NHS, what is it in favour of? I simply cannot find out the answer to that question any more.
What does represent a radical departure from the past is the fact that we are pressing ahead with the reforms with purpose and pace. I make no apology for the fact that we are going to achieve the changes required in the NHS more rapidly than anything that the Labour party did in the past—because not to do so would prejudice the opportunity to deliver resources to the front line, choice for patients and clinical responsibility for leaders across the NHS.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
On at least two occasions in the House since the general election, the right hon. Gentleman has cited the Health Committee report on commissioning that was published in March, and used my name, as that Committee’s then Chair, to suggest that the report supports his changes in commissioning in the White Paper. Will he confirm that it does not do that? Where is the evidence that the change in commissioning will save any money?
Mr Lansley
What is very clear from the Health Committee’s report before the election is that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it criticised in strong terms the weaknesses of PCT commissioning, and that position has only been reinforced since then. One such example is out-of-hours services, for which PCTs were supposed to be the commissioners but did not properly scrutinise the services being tendered, and did not monitor the contracts or the quality of the contracts. PCTs have too often been responsible for simple cost and volume commissioning. What we are concerned with, because we shall engage clinical leadership in the commissioning of services through the NHS, is being engaged in commissioning for quality. Patients will be able to exercise choice based on real information that tells them about the quality of the services being provided, not the cost and volume—
Mr Lansley
I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am now going to conclude rapidly.
Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne said, we have heard organisations from right across the NHS supporting the principles of the White Paper. The British Medical Association says that it
“strongly supports greater clinical involvement in the design and management”
of the health service.
The Royal College of Nursing said:
“The principles on which the proposed reforms are based—placing patients at the heart of the NHS, focusing on clinical outcomes and empowering health professionals—are both welcome and supported by the RCN.”
The King’s Fund said that it
“strongly supports the aims of the White Paper”.
The National Association of Primary Care described the White Paper as
“a unique opportunity to raise the bar in the commissioning and delivery of care for patients.”
The chairman of the NHS Alliance said that it provides
“a unique opportunity for frontline GPs... to make a real difference to the health of their patients”
The Foundation Trust Network said:
“the vision for the NHS articulated in the White Paper is the right one—putting patients and carers at the centre”.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne made a number of specific points. He said that the reforms were an ideological gamble. Well, if they are, they are based on an ideology once shared by the Labour party; and if there is an ideology, it is the belief that patients and clinicians in the health service know best. That is not a gamble at all; it is a certainty.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about reorganisation, but he did not say that the number of managers in primary care trusts rose all the way through to last year in the face of the impending crisis in finances over which the Labour Government presided. He did not tell us that last year primary care trusts spent £261 million on consultancy—an 80% increase in such expenditure in two years.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us the benefit of some of his figures—some of his dodgy numbers—so let me give him a real number. Our decisions to cut the cost of management and administration in the NHS will release £1.9 billion of savings a year by 2014-15. That money will be reinvested directly to support front-line care, so there will be not only a real increase in the resources available to the NHS, but a real change and increase in the resources that get to the front line, because we are cutting the costs of administration and back offices.
Let me make this clear—
Mr Lansley
No.
Against all the advice from the Opposition, we protected the NHS budget in the spending review. It was a brave decision for a Government to take in such circumstances, but it underlined our commitment as a coalition to the NHS. It was a decision that went contrary to the advice and recommendations of the Opposition. For the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne to try to attack the Government over “cuts”—he used that word—in the present circumstances is pure opportunism.
The right hon. Gentleman will not say whether he backs our NHS budget. He talked about what the shadow Chancellor is supposed to have said, but it was the shadow Chancellor who specifically said that he did not support our proposals to increase the NHS budget. Does the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne support our cancer drugs fund or not? He did not say. Does he back our integration of health and social care and the resources that we will use through the NHS to support social care and local authorities? He has not said.
The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Opposition oppose or support our commitment to the NHS. How could he? The Leader of the Opposition said before the spending review that he would publish his alternative proposals, but he never did so. The Opposition were promised it, but it did not happen. Without a plan for the economy and for public services, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne can say nothing about the NHS.
Our commitment to the NHS is clear. We have made tough choices on public spending so that we can protect the NHS and ensure that the sick do not pay for Labour’s debt crisis—
Mr Lansley
I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman before.
The big gamble is not pressing ahead with reform; the gamble now would be to carry on as the last Government did, failing to implement the reforms that are necessary and desirable—and supported—across the service. The spending review and the White Paper give the health service a clear, practical, evidence-based framework for sustained improvement in the future. We will not go back to the days of top-down Whitehall micromanagement and bureaucracy. We will free the NHS to improve outcomes for all patients and to meet our vision of ensuring that health outcomes for the people of this country are among the best in the world. I urge the House to reject the Labour party’s motion.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I want to focus on one specific part of the Government’s plans, which has already been mentioned by a couple of my hon. Friends and by the former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). It is the funding of our children’s hospitals.
I am fortunate enough to have at the heart of my constituency Sheffield children’s hospital, which is a centre of excellence for the region and for the country. It offers pioneering services in trauma and orthopaedics, it is a regional centre for the whole of the north of England for burns injuries and the principal treatment centre for South Yorkshire for childhood cancers, and its metabolic bone service is accessed from across the UK. It does a superb job treating some of our most critically ill children and I want to use one example to bring to light the importance of its work.
A young girl was left unconscious on the streets of Derbyshire with devastating brain injuries after being hit by a car. She was 13 years old. She was transferred to the hospital’s intensive care unit, where a scan revealed the full extent of her head injuries. She was seen to have diffuse axonal injury, one of the most devastating types of traumatic brain injury and, as the Secretary of State will know, a major cause of long-term unconsciousness. She was moved to the children’s hospital’s neurosciences unit, which has specialist equipment to support her rehabilitation and expert consultant neurosurgeons—these are crucial points. Her mother said:
“The doctors and nurses were wonderful and really did go above the call of duty to provide the very best care and treatment. The ward manager was like a second mum to her. The team cared for her like a member of their own family. She is now back at home, relearning simple things such as walking and talking. There is a long road ahead, but if it was not for the Children’s Hospital she wouldn’t be here.”
Such cases involve staff from many disciplines and services to ensure that the patient makes the best recovery possible. Neurosciences are one of the trust’s flagship services, treating children who have suffered brain injuries or who have other brain conditions, spinal cord conditions, diseases such as meningitis or conditions such as epilepsy. The intensive care unit is part of the hospital’s state-of-the-art critical care facility for children and is situated alongside high-dependency and neonatal surgical units, meaning that all the critical care services are in close proximity.
Such services come at a cost, however, and I have always understood that that is why we have had a top-up tariff to pay for the extra staff and the additional support needed to provide that specialist care to very young patients. We now understand that the Government plan—they might be in discussions, but we understand that this is the plan—to cut the tariff to less than a third of its current value.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that that puts a whole new slant on the saying, “Women and children first”?
Paul Blomfield
I certainly would. To cut the tariff from 78 to 25% is the most outrageous proposal on health care to have come from this Government.
When questioned on this issue—this is extraordinary—a spokeswoman from the Department of Health said, very casually,
“less than 10 hospitals are likely to be affected significantly by these changes and the tariff is not their only source of income.”
We are talking about 10 of the leading hospitals that care for our children. Let us be clear: the Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust has estimated that the change could cut its budget by as much as £4.9 million. That is a reduction of almost 10% in its total funding. It has said that that
“would have a serious impact on the hospital finances and ability to deliver some services.”
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has an excellent hospital in his constituency. Will he advise me why the Labour party set in train the closure of Burnley’s children’s ward when it was in power, leaving an area of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale and more than 250,000 people without a children’s ward, never mind a children’s hospital?
Paul Blomfield
I can certainly talk at length about the enormous investment that we made in our hospitals and health services and about the tremendous difference that that made to patients and to reducing the waiting lists that we inherited in 1997. However, I want to make the point about the impact on Sheffield children’s hospital. As the hospital said, the change will have a serious impact on its ability to deliver services that provide critical interventions for those whom we should be protecting most—our children. If the Government are prepared to attack these budgets in such a way, what will the commitment to guarantee health spending increases in real terms in each year of this Parliament be other than another broken promise?
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
In the brief time available, I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in a detailed discussion of children’s hospitals, but I congratulate him on the first part of his speech, because he reminded us of what we are here to talk about—the delivery of high-quality care to patients, often in circumstances of extreme distress to them and their families.
I welcome the fact that the debate is taking place, but it is important for us not to imply that there is a choice to be made by politicians in 2010 about whether the health service faces the need for fundamental reform. The truth is that the health service, by which I mean the pattern of delivery of health care to patients, needs fundamental reform, as has been acknowledged since at least 2009. The shadow Secretary of State was good enough to confirm in his contribution that he recognises the need for that fundamental reform, which was set out by Sir David Nicholson in the £15 billion to £20 billion efficiency challenge. The purpose of the Nicholson challenge is to reconcile continuing rises in demand for health care, which we must assume will continue their long-term trends, with the inevitable fact that health budgets are more constrained, and will be more constrained in the years ahead, than during the period of the Labour Government. That was recognised before the general election, which is why the Nicholson challenge was articulated.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
But does the right hon. Gentleman agree that instead of taking such a big gamble with the NHS at this stage, it would be better to pilot some of the initiatives and changes to see whether they actually deliver better health outcomes?
Mr Dorrell
I shall come to the White Paper later, but I want to focus on what I regard as the key, unavoidable reforms that have to be delivered during this Parliament. I do not think the hon. Lady will find them controversial. They are the continued development of improvements in the delivery of primary care; the priority need to address unnecessary admissions to hospital, which have been identified by the National Audit Office as running at 30% of non-emergency hospital admissions; the need to address the requirement the health service faces to use its most expensive resource, clinicians’ time, more effectively; the need to improve links between social care and health-care, because if they do not work effectively there is no way we can deliver the aspirations we all share for high quality care delivered by the national health service; and the need to deliver better patient, user and local community involvement in the design and delivery of health care.
All those things are the challenges the health service faces over the lifetime of this Parliament. They are not a matter of political choice; they were articulated by Sir David Nicholson during the previous Government. They were endorsed by the previous Secretary of State and this afternoon they have been endorsed again by the shadow Secretary of State. It is simplest to summarise them by describing them in total as the need to deliver a 4% efficiency gain through the entire national health service system for four years running.
A few weeks ago, when Sir David Nicholson was before the Health Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, we asked him to set that challenge in context and he described it—as the shadow Secretary of State was right to say—as the most substantial challenge not just anywhere in the public service, but anywhere in the economy. The challenge has no precedent in any advanced health care system in the world. The challenge is huge: a 4% efficiency gain throughout the NHS, four years running. We are looking to deliver a wholly unprecedented efficiency gain. Against that background, what is the importance of the White Paper?
I ask the House to consider for a moment the counterfactual. Is it possible to deliver that kind of efficiency gain in the health service without effective empowered commissioning driving change? If effective empowered commissioners will not do it, who on earth will? Secondly, is it possible to imagine effective empowered commissioning that does not engage the clinical community in the process more effectively than we have yet done?
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
If there is a requirement for more clinical involvement—for GPs to be more involved in commissioning—why do the Government not simply put GPs on the boards of primary care trusts? That would be a simpler, easier solution and would not cost as much. Is it not the case that the Government would rather open up commissioning to the private sector? Is that not the reality of their proposals?
Mr Dorrell
I cannot summarise the Government’s proposals in the White Paper in three minutes, but one of their key drivers is to deliver far greater clinical engagement in the commissioning process than was achieved in the lifetime of the previous Government, in my time as Secretary of State or at any time in the 20-year history of health service commissioning. We want to achieve a step change in the engagement of the clinical community in the commissioning process. As long as commissioning is something that is done to clinicians by managers, it will fail. It has to engage the clinical community on both sides of the argument. That, as I understand the Secretary of State’s White Paper, is one of his core objectives, and if it is, it has my full-hearted support.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
In advancing that idea, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the power to commission is being given to clinicians only in primary care, and that clinicians who work in a hospital setting are not being empowered or involved in the commissioning process at all?
Mr Dorrell
The hon. Gentleman is a fellow member of the Select Committee and I know from our discussions that the principle of clinical engagement in commissioning is broadly supported in the Committee. It is fair to say that none of us would support the view—I suspect the Secretary of State would not either—that clinical engagement means only GP engagement. We should see the GP as the catalyst for broader clinical engagement in the commissioning process if we are to deliver our objectives.
To deliver the Nicholson challenge, we must have strong commissioning, with clinical engagement, and we have to remove unnecessary processes that do not add value. We cannot afford to waste money on them. We must have greater local accountability for the commissioning process in order to embrace public support for change on this unprecedented scale.
Mr Dorrell
I have only 40 seconds left for my speech, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me I should like to conclude.
My key message is that as we look at the lifetime of this Parliament, I do not see the White Paper as the linchpin of reform, but as a key tool in the delivery of the reforms that are neatly encapsulated in what I have described as the Nicholson challenge.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I often comment that when I became an MP I did not get two items that would have made life so much easier—tarot cards and a crystal ball. In considering the coalition Government’s health policy, they would be essential tools for the job, because before the general election, the statements of the Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister—gave us the impression of a future for the NHS that was completely different from the one we now face. He said:
“We are the only party committed to protecting NHS spending…I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.”
He spoke about a period of organisational stability in the NHS. Those were broken promise No. 1 and broken promise No. 2. Instead, we are faced with a vision from the Secretary of State which could set us back 20 years. I say so not as political rhetoric, but from 30 years’ direct involvement in the NHS, including 10 years as chair of a hospital.
The press seems to share that pessimistic view—“extraordinary gamble,” “cocktail of instability,” “accident waiting to happen”—hardly a ringing endorsement of the Government’s health policy. For me, it is a recipe for disaster: one part reduced financial resources, two parts structural reform and three parts break-neck speed—
Rosie Cooper
Absolutely. I am sure the Secretary of State will give due cognisance to the comments being made, especially about putting resources right there on the front line, delivering for the very people who are paying the wages.
In his evidence to the Select Committee on 20 July, the Health Secretary set out five aims of the White Paper, and he went through them here today. I shall review some of those in the light of the dribbles of information that we have received, and see how they stand up. The first aim was creating a patient-led NHS. Let us start with the Secretary of State’s glib catch-phrase, “No decision about me without me”—
Rosie Cooper
Yes, glib. Where is the substance? Will it make any difference if the GP consortiums do not agree with the Secretary of State? Will those consortiums meet in private or in public? Will he listen to those patient voices? Will he be able to hear them?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that when it comes to prevention and early diagnosis of diseases, the GP and what happens at the clinic and the surgery is critical? Money can be saved in the long term. Perhaps that is what the Government should be doing—making sure that money is there on the front line, in the GP surgeries and in the clinics.
Rosie Cooper
Nobody could disagree with that.
The NHS will be one where the area and street where people live will determine whether they have access to certain drug treatment, because of the weakening of NICE and a shift back to value-based pricing, placing drug companies back in control, and a return to postcode prescribing—an NHS where people may or may not get certain operations. Already in my area, across Lancashire, primary care trusts are reviewing funding for 70 procedures, so if patients require an endoscopic procedure for their knee or back, or a hysterectomy, those may no longer be available.
How far people travel to their hospital depends on whether they have a hospital close by that offers the treatment that they need. On 26 October at the Select Committee, various witnesses gave evidence that hospital closures will be necessary to release moneys back into the wider health service. How many patients would agree that such a state of affairs is part of a patient-led NHS? Not many, I bet.
Improving health care outcomes was the Secretary of State’s second aim. It seems highly unlikely, given that the ability to deliver improved outcomes is reliant on front-line services and the availability of the staff to deliver them. The Royal College of Nursing expects to lose 27,000 front-line jobs. That is the equivalent of losing nine Alder Hey children’s hospitals. The work of the RCN suggests that under the guise of 45% management cuts, the NHS will lose health care assistants, nurses and medical staff—front-line cuts by stealth.
All this must be set in the context of what was said to be the lowest financial settlement since the 1950s, reputed to be 0.1%—as we heard today, that is already disputed—together with massive pressure on NHS budgets from increased VAT costs—[Interruption.]—redundancy payments, budget short-falls and hospitals having tariffs frozen—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State does not need to shout across the Chamber. He has had his time.
Rosie Cooper
It would help if I could hear the right hon. Gentleman, but never mind.
The difficulties are topped up with increasing demand for services, an ageing population, an increase in the number of people with complex illnesses and the rising cost of treatment. That is all very worrying.
At the Select Committee the Secretary of State spoke about increasing autonomy and accountability in the NHS. I have raised that with him on a number of occasions and I tried to intervene today. It is a further example of the two health policies of the Administration, one mythological and the other the reality. Perpetuating the myth, the Secretary of State said at the Select Committee that
“the conclusion that we reached was that we could achieve democratic accountability more effectively by creating a stronger strategic relationship between the general practice-led consortia and the local authority.”
We might imagine that that meant patients and elected representatives at the heart of decision-making, and that the consortiums would operate with councillors on the board, who would be able to vote, but no. Scrutiny will come from well-being boards, which means that patients and councillors will not be there offering their opinions and able to vote. Well-being boards, like the current NHS overview and scrutiny arrangements, may as well not exist because they will be nothing more than a focus group.
I said at the Select Committee that those arrangements were nothing short of throwing snowballs at a moving truck—they would make little or no difference. The Government are giving a budget of more than £80 billion to GPs who just want to practise medicine and not get involved in the experiment.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
May I mention the issue of GPs and safeguarding, the key role that GPs play in keeping children safe, and the fact that if they are spending time commissioning services, who will fulfil that vital function?
Rosie Cooper
We need to get more GPs to do that, and I think that is what the Secretary of State is trying to say.
The Government plan no testing or pilots, just a big bang, using consortiums as a shield to deflect criticism from them, rather as they currently use the Liberal Democrats.
The fourth aim was promoting public health. Everybody agrees that prevention is key to easing the cost burdens further down the health pathway, so if we were serious, we would be doing more about promoting public health. Simply allocating 4% of the NHS budget and giving it to cash-strapped local authorities does not seem the best and most effective way of promoting public health. We await more detail, although that might be as difficult to follow as the Department of Health’s £1 billion allocation to social care.
That brings me to the fifth aim of the White Paper. Following the publication yesterday of “A Vision for Adult Social Care” by the Department, the foreword gives us a sense of where we are heading with the Government’s policy. Under the third value, responsibility, it states:
“Social care is not solely the responsibility of the state. Communities and wider civil society must be set free to run innovative local schemes and build local networks of support.”
I wonder whether that is code for “We’ve got no real money to invest. Local authorities are not going to be able to meet the demand. Oh well, you’d better get on with it yourself.”
It is no use the document quoting Frederick Seebohm from 1968, as that might not reflect the world of today. As an ideal, it is great, but not every family and every individual can offer the help and support that are required. There are incredible strains on hard-working families and individuals trying to make ends meet while struggling to provide care for ill and elderly relatives—
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I support the Opposition’s motion in one respect: their call on the Secretary of State
“to listen to the warnings from patients’ groups, health professionals and NHS experts”.
I want to address particularly the issues affecting those in integrated health care. I speak as the chair of the integrated health care group—the old complementary medicine group—and as someone who has the honour of serving under my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) on the Health Committee. I wish to look at the regulation of herbal medicine, the possibility of complementary medicine leading to cost reductions in the health service and the choice of services.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, we will have a problem next year with the implementation of the traditional herbal medicines directive, about which many colleagues have been approached by constituents. From April, practitioners will no longer be regulated under section 68 of the Health Act 2009, so my first plea to my right hon. Friend is to come up with a solution to this problem ahead of time—ahead of Christmas, I hope. Otherwise, from April, practitioners will be unable to prescribe the herbs they have been prescribing under the section 68 derogation. The best course of action is the Health Professions Council, because that is the only body—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the directive, amendments to the directive or herbal medicine. We are discussing the reorganisation of the health service, to which he needs to direct his points to make them relevant to the motion.
David Tredinnick
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I am talking about is relevant to cost savings, choice and the use of existing practitioners. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that issue; otherwise it will cause him major problems next year. I will now move on.
The other, related problem is that, under this arrangement, unless my right hon. Friend acts, we will lose many available products from the shelves, which will affect health service costs and what practitioners can do. Yesterday, I went to Brussels to discuss the issue as it affects health service, which we are discussing, and related cost savings. I spoke to Elena Antonescu, a Member of the European Parliament, who advised me that if the health service is to continue with traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicines, the Secretary of State will have to lobby Members of the European Parliament to go to the Commission to produce a report that they first proposed in 2008.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing at the margins. We are not discussing European directives; we are talking about reorganisation of the health service in line with the White Paper. He must put his comments in that context.
David Tredinnick
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your help. I have made my point about Europe having to be involved.
I also want to comment on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and others about cancer care. Cancer patients can be much helped by integrated health care practitioners. I could cite many different hospitals, but I shall mention just one—Royal Surrey County hospital, which is a national health care award-winning hospital. It includes St Luke’s cancer centre, which offers a wide range of complementary therapies in support of the health service. I want to see such choice widened. If herbal and nutritional medicines are used, that will reduce the costs of the health service referred to in the motion. Many institutions abroad, such as Australia’s National Institute of Complementary Medicine, have shown Governments the way and enabled them to restructure services and provide cost savings.
With those remarks, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks with care at what I have said about these benefits.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of this House, has been pretty close to not being in order. I take it that he has now resumed his seat, and I will move on to the next contribution.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am delighted to have an opportunity to say a few words in this debate.
Labour’s investment in health care over the past 13 years has produced huge strides. When we think about the position in 1997, with long waiting lists and hospitals in desperate need of refurbishment, we realise that we have come a very long way. I am disappointed that the new coalition Government, instead of deciding to build on the very successful investment over the past 13 years, are now engaged in an ideological approach to the NHS to bring in the private sector and to destroy a lot of the very good work that has been done.
I pay tribute to all NHS staff, clinical, non-clinical and administrative, who do their best and work very hard for patients. One of the most upsetting things I have heard since May is Government Front Benchers’ denigration of our NHS managers and administrators. That is very wrong.
My main starting point is to look at whether the coalition’s proposals will improve the health of my constituents in Hull. I do not think they will. I am absolutely appalled that the Government are to spend £3 billion on reorganisation when there is such a tight financial settlement for the NHS. Their focus should be on ensuring that patient care is maintained over the next few years, not on reorganisation.
Hull has a very good primary care trust. I pay tribute to the excellent and innovative work of Chris Long, the chief executive, and of Wendy Richardson, the jointly appointed director of public health with the local authority. As a spearhead PCT, Hull received additional money under the previous Government. It introduced projects such as the health trainers who have done so much in working with communities that have high levels of health inequality, for which different ways of working must be adopted. It has also done work on domestic violence and worked with its perpetrators.
The reason I am such a fan of Hull PCT is that, unfortunately, we have a Liberal Democrat-controlled council that does not seem to have any focus on its responsibilities for public health. The previous Labour council introduced free healthy school meals in all the city’s primary and special schools, rather than wait for an evaluation after three years of the pilot project, but the Lib Dems came in and scrapped it. The project was trying to do something about the high levels of obesity and poor performance in schools—to get to our youngsters early to ensure that they eat well. When that Lib Dem council is given the agenda for public health, I do not have much faith in it taking it seriously.
Hon. Members will recall the introduction of the free swimming initiative in the previous Parliament, which got our young people active through swimming and engaged our councils. Of course, Lib Dem-controlled Hull city council said, no, it was not going to get involved, and at the same time it put up the costs to our youngsters of attending sports clubs in the city. I am therefore very sceptical about the proposed public health agenda being taken on by Lib Dem local authorities.
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend will know about the health needs in Newham, where the incidence of TB is rising and the rate of HIV is very high. The people who have helped me and my constituents most in managing these health needs have been the people at the PCT, who have been very responsive to my requests and requirements. Has she found the same in Hull?
Diana Johnson
Absolutely. Although not all PCTs have operated as we would like, there is good practice throughout the country. We should focus on that and see what we can learn.
I am concerned about the coalition Government’s approach to public health, because the junk food industry seems to be helping them to make policy, as some of our national media have reported in the past few days.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have decided to abolish the health in pregnancy grant, which would further assist pregnant mothers with healthy eating and preparing for the birth of a healthy baby?
Diana Johnson
Absolutely. My hon. Friend campaigned long and hard for families, especially low-income families, in a previous occupation. The health in pregnancy grant is going and the Sure Start grant will now be paid only for the first pregnancy, so we are starting to see what the Government really think about improving people’s health, especially that of women.
Of course, we must not forget that during the election campaign in May the Liberal Democrats made it very clear that they thought NHS funding should not be ring-fenced. The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) said that the NHS should not be treated as a sacred cow. Again, we see the Liberal Democrats being the more regressive part of the coalition.
I wish now to concentrate on GP commissioning, because there are major issues on which we need to focus. Many specialist groups, particularly the muscular dystrophy group in Yorkshire, have been in touch with me to say that they are concerned that local GPs will not understand their health needs. I have talked to patients in the local hospital and other people receiving health care locally, who are anxious about their particular needs being met.
For me, a bigger issue is the performance of GPs. PCTs have been particularly successful in holding to account GPs who do not perform as well as they should, and I am particularly concerned about who is going to hold the ring. Who will deal with GPs who do not meet the needs of their communities?
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the bureaucracy in the new system of GP consortiums. I believe that there will be more administrators, and I say to the Secretary of State that, if we are to focus on health outcomes, bureaucrats will be needed to put together information and statistics and we will not, therefore, see the massive reduction in backroom staff that the Secretary of State expects.
A lack of accountability at local and national level is a major problem. The new national board—the largest quango that we have ever seen—is being created, but to whom will it be accountable? It is not acceptable for the Secretary of State and his Ministers to come to the House and say, “That is for the national board”, or “That is for local decision making.” We need control over what happens to our NHS. As I asked in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), why cannot we have some pilot projects? If the change is to be so great, let us pilot it, see what happens and take a considered approach. Let us have some evidence to back up the White Paper.
I do not believe that any of the Government’s proposals will improve the health care of the people I represent. Of course we believe that clinical involvement is important, and of course doctors and other health care professionals should be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) made the point that we should use the PCT structure to provide more clinical information and advice—we can have that involvement without throwing out the whole structure.
The Government must also consider other health care professionals, such as pharmacists. There are pharmacists on the high street in my constituency who really contribute to the health care of my constituents. People such as Mr Hall on Beverley road and Cath Boury on Newland avenue do face-to-face work to encourage people to give up smoking or reduce their weight. If we want to get clinicians involved, let us get all the clinical practitioners involved.
I finish with the “any willing provider” model in the White Paper. The Labour Government made it clear that the NHS was the provider of choice. That was exactly the right thing to do, because it recognised the important role the NHS has played over the past 60 years. It has staff with specialism and dedication, but the idea of “any willing provider” is just code for the private sector, is it not? The attitude is, “Let’s just roll it out and have the private sector run our NHS.” Most people in this country, particularly those who vote for the Liberal Democrats—I point to their Benches in saying this—will be shocked to know that their MPs are standing up for the private sector. It is disgraceful, and I hope very much that the White Paper will be amended to state that the Government support the NHS as the main provider of choice, rather than going down the road of the private sector and the Americanisation of the NHS.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Government’s refresh of the cancer strategy, announced within two months of their taking office, and their commitment to the cancer drugs fund, clearly illustrate their commitment to improving cancer services in this country. As chairman of the all-party group on cancer, I very much welcome that.
May I suggest that the Government’s focus on outcomes is long overdue? Cancer survival rates in this country have been improving steadily for the past 30 years, but it remains scandalous that the UK is still floundering in the lower divisions of the international cancer league. Part of the problem is that for too long, the NHS has been focused on process-based targets. We need greater focus on outcomes to put the spotlight on just how well the NHS treats patients, not just on how quickly they are seen. That focus will be very important to patients, and particularly to cancer patients.
Last year, our all-party group set up an inquiry, which reported at the end of the year, on cancer inequalities. The evidence clearly showed that patients who survive one year stand as much chance of reaching the five-year point as cancer patients in other countries. However, where this country lets itself down is that our figures are poor compared with other countries when it comes to the one-year survival rates. That suggests that the NHS is as good as, if not better than, any other health service when it comes to treating cancer once it is detected, but falls down badly in detecting the cancer in the first place. That was why the all-party group’s report recommended the introduction of a one-year cancer survival rate measure, to encourage earlier diagnosis. Late diagnosis makes for poor one-year figures, hence our recommendations. I was therefore delighted that the Government picked up on that point and introduced one-year cancer survival rates as well as five-year survival rates in the White Paper.
Lyn Brown
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech with care, and I totally agree with what he has said so far, especially about early diagnosis. In poorer areas, early diagnosis does not occur so often, for myriad reasons. In his view, what is set out in the reorganisation White Paper that will make early detection of cancer easier in areas such as mine?
Mr Baron
The answer to the hon. Lady’s question was supplied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in answer to my question earlier. The one and five-year cancer survival rate figures will be published and presented, although how that will happen is in the melting pot. I very much welcome the work of the Office for National Statistics, the National Cancer Intelligence Network and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Whatever form the figures take, they will be in a performance table, not a league table, to ensure that all PCTs and then GP consortiums are tasked with improving performance, irrespective of how they compare with others. That will obviously include PCTs in deprived areas across the country.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the focus on outcomes must include patient experience measures and longer-term quality of life measures, such as whether patients are able to return to work. That, too, is very important from the point of view of cancer patients.
As an aside, I suggest that there is a question mark about process-based targets such as waiting times in general. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), the real problem when it comes to late diagnosis is not whether it takes one, two or four weeks for a patient to see a cancer specialist. It is how long it takes for the suspicion to be raised that cancer exists in that patient in the first place. Perhaps we should incentivise GPs to detect cancer earlier.
Kate Green
I absolutely appreciate the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the debate, but I should like to ask his views on the issue of anxiety while waiting for an appointment. Whatever the physical outcomes of early treatment, there is a peace of mind issue for patients who are anxious to see their doctor as quickly as possible.
Mr Baron
I accept what the hon. Lady says, and I hope that the focus on outcomes will include matters such as patient experience surveys, which will incorporate that very point. It is an integral part of a patient’s experience, and it should be picked up when we start focusing on outcomes.
I return to GPs being incentivised to detect cancers earlier. In that vein, I very much support Cancer Research UK’s campaign to encourage greater access for GPs to diagnostic testing. That will be terribly important when it comes to detecting cancers earlier.
Moving on to GP commissioning of cancer services, there is no doubt in my mind that there is room for improvement in this area, and it would be naïve of Members to believe otherwise. There is often frequent confusion between the roles of strategic health authorities, cancer networks, PCTs and hospital trusts. The priorities of the cancer reform strategy are often not aligned with those of the PCTs.
I should like to play devil’s advocate and suggest to the Secretary of State that we need to tread carefully in dealing with the challenges ahead. The Secretary of State will be aware that GPs see only about eight new cancer cases a year, and that cancer is a set of 200-plus diseases with often complex care pathways. The GPs are often involved in the early and late stages of that care pathway, but the complex bit in the middle is often conducted by clinicians in hospitals.
Challenges lie ahead. We need to ensure that the responsibilities of the NHS commissioning board, the PCTs and the GP consortiums are clearly defined to avoid fragmentation of treatment across the cancer pathway. The reforms must help and not hinder the close working relationship between primary and secondary care doctors. The role of cancer networks in supporting GP consortiums needs to be clarified before those networks are broken up and their expertise is lost.
Furthermore, we must consider whether we need to redistribute the financial incentives to encourage more focus on the earlier and late stages of the care pathway. In other words, we must ensure that reward matches responsibility. Should a qualities and outcomes framework be realigned so that early diagnosis, survival and people dying in their place of choice are included?
In the last minute left to me I shall mention the cancer drugs fund. I have raised the issue with the Secretary of State before. There appears to be early evidence of disparity of access. When it comes to the cancer drugs fund, access should always be clinician-led. In some regions, approaches can be made to the PCT, and in others they are made to the cancer network, which, in turn, has access to the fund. Elsewhere, GPs are forming panels. May I suggest that best practice from the interim drugs fund is applied uniformly before the main drugs fund kicks off next spring? We do not want to add to cancer inequalities when it comes to access to treatment and drugs.
In the past, rarer cancers have had a very raw deal. I know that the Secretary of State is conscious of that and will ensure that those who suffer from rarer cancers will be treated much more fairly than in the past.
There is not time for the Secretary of State to answer all my questions now, but I hope that he will address them when he speaks at the Britain Against Cancer conference on 14 December, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
In short, the refocusing on outcomes is the greatest innovation and benefit to patients since the NHS began. However, that must not be undermined by the problems with GP commissioning.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I want to take up a few of the points made by the Secretary of State. First, he talked as if the previous Labour Government had done nothing for the NHS and had shown no concern about how people were treated. It is worth reminding the House what Labour inherited in 1997 after a number of years of Conservative mismanagement. We used to have waiting lists of more than two years. Now, waiting lists are down to less than six months. A record number of nurses, doctors and porters have come into the hospital system. Many hospitals have been built and many others have been refurbished. Therefore, we will not listen to the Government telling us that we did nothing or that we did not take care of the NHS. We spent more than £80 billion on the NHS, which benefited many people. The Government state that they will protect the NHS and will not reduce the funding. That is just not correct. They talk about billions of pounds going into the NHS, but the money will actually go to the social care fund, which does not directly benefit people in hospitals. In real terms, there will be a 17.5% cut over four years. There is a decrease in the budget and services will be affected.
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend must have noticed the chuntering taking place on the Government Front Bench. The same happened during the speeches of a number of other Opposition Members. Does she not think that that is really poor form, especially when the Secretary of State did not seem able to take interventions when it was his turn?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is a matter for me to control. The hon. Lady will continue with her speech. I am sure that all Members of this House, including those on both Front Benches, will behave appropriately in this debate.
Yasmin Qureshi
We are told by the Government that the reorganisation is not ideologically driven, but is somehow a way of maximising efficiency and making the systems better. At a time when we are being told that there is not enough money, commentators and experts are saying that this reorganisation will cost at least £3 billion. We are not talking about a small amount of money; we are talking about £3 billion.
Lisa Nandy
In my constituency of Wigan, despite the extreme and visible progress that we have made in the past 13 years of Labour Government, there are still significant health inequalities. In fact 129 per 100,000 people in my constituency die of coronary heart disease, compared to 90 nationally. I know that my hon. Friend shares my concerns, but does she agree that, at a time when we should be addressing those health inequalities and continuing to invest in the NHS, it is an absolute scandal that we are spending the amount of money that she suggests?
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She and I have almost adjoining constituencies, and many of the issues and problems of her constituents are very similar to those in my area. When we were in power, £345 million was set aside for disabled children, for respite and all-night breaks. All of those children will now suffer because the White Paper makes no mention of funding for disabled children after March 2011. Yet, we have £3 billion to pay for reorganisation. On 2 November 2009, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, told the Royal College of Pathologists that under the Conservatives, there would be no more restructuring of the NHS.
On 20 May, the coalition Government said:
“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that got in the way of patient care.”
What are they doing? They are carrying out exactly that reorganisation. If the Government want to make some real improvements to the NHS, the principle of “no decision about me without me” should be considered. The Health Secretary should reconsider the NHS reorganisation and try to think of a better way to use that money for patients.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend says that the reorganisation is ideologically driven. Is not it the case that when one intends to spend up to £3 billion, one needs an evidence base and proof that that spending—whatever it is on—will be money well spent? As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, there have been no trial programmes or pathfinders. The money could be spent without a shred of evidence that it will make one bit of difference.
Yasmin Qureshi
I agree. I was about to discuss the impact of the reforms, with GP consortiums replacing PCTs. We know that there will be huge differences in the arrangements for health care in different areas. With the formation of up to 500 GP consortiums, all free to set their own priorities, a highly visible two-tier service will develop. Patients will be forced to move GPs or be reallocated to another area to get the care that they need.
The financial success of each consortium will also affect the service that patients receive. It will influence the type of care provided and how long it lasts. Some patients who need hospital treatment will inevitably be told by their GP, “Sorry, you’ll have to wait until next year.” Evidence has shown that making providers compete for patients and providing more choice to patients has done little to improve quality. Most people who are offered a choice of hospitals opt for their local provider. Choice may be important, but for patients, it comes below the quality, speed and accessibility of care.
The proposals do not make it clear whether the patients of the commissioning GP do the choosing. However, the GPs’ new contract will have a powerful incentive to hit commissioning targets. How, therefore, do patients know whether they are being prescribed the best or just the cheapest treatment going?
Again, there is no evidence to show that the restructuring would reduce the bureaucratic load. Hospitals alone will have at least three times the number of commissioners with whom to communicate and contract. Five hundred GP consortiums, each with its own set-up and administrative costs, will replace the current 150 PCTs. Huge differences in the arrangements for health care will emerge between areas. A postcode lottery will develop.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the description of a consortium of GPs—a loose affinity of people with whom they get on rather than a geographical boundary—and the loss of co-terminosity will affect patients? Indeed, it will not simply be a postcode lottery, but, across the board, a matter of whom a patient is registered with.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Some years ago, when that sort of process was introduced in the legal system, with solicitors able to apply for franchises, the big firms benefited and the smaller, local firms went bust. A similar thing will happen. Some GPs, who run small surgeries in the heart of a community, will not be able to form consortiums. What happens to them? Does it mean that people in parts of Kearsley in my constituency will have to travel seven miles to go to a big GP consortium rather than being able to walk down the street and speak to their GPs, as they currently do?
The reform means that private patients will have a chance to pay for faster care in the NHS. Now that the restriction on the income that can be made from private patients is being lifted, cash-strapped hospitals will find it difficult to resist that income stream. Patients could routinely be offered that route to faster treatment. Thus wealthier people can queue jump, while NHS patients will linger on a lengthening waiting list.
I know that the Secretary of State—
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I shall be brief as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I am pleased to speak in the debate as someone who is about to see rather a lot of our national health service. My wife and I are due literally any day now—some may say tomorrow—to have our second child at the Royal Hampshire county hospital in Winchester, so all, including my Whips, will forgive me if I miss the Adjournment debate tonight.
Perhaps I am a little biased, but the Royal Hampshire in my constituency is in many ways the sort of institution that I see as the cornerstone of our national health service. It is a classic district general hospital, with a full service, and maternity and A and E departments at its heart. Elderly care services are first rate and infection rates are among the lowest in the NHS. We have a neonatal baby care unit, for which many similar sized institutions would give their right arm, and a bustling out-patients unit. Of course, the hospital would like to do more, but it sits at the heart of the community in Winchester and the surrounding areas because it is continually strengthened by the fact that the people who work there—the nurses, the midwives, the consultants and the cleaners—live in and around the city of Winchester. Of course, the NHS is more than its physical hospital buildings, but I view the Government’s equity and excellence White Paper in the context of institutions such as the Royal Hampshire and the locally connected NHS services that cluster around it.
My local NHS trust will undergo many changes in the coming years as it prepares, with its partners, to make the gear change to foundation status. That is absolutely right in my view to liberate our NHS. As I have often said to my trust and to the people I represent, I am not hung up on the name at the top of the wage slip for individual employees of the NHS in Winchester or anywhere else; I am merely concerned about the services that the NHS in Winchester offers the people I represent. I suspect that no hon. Member would disagree with that.
Equally, I am concerned about protecting the services in the financial context in which we find ourselves and the enormous national debts under which we labour. I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the NHS at the heart of his programme for government. He must have been watching closely because I did the same in Winchester. I am especially proud to be elected as a new member of the new Government, who made the political choice—it is a choice; we did not have to do it—to protect health spending in the recently announced spending round. I know that Labour Members do not believe that and that at every turn they will try to rubbish it, as we have seen from part of the motion’s wording today. I guess that part of me, were I in their position, would do the same. It must really rankle. There is a new coalition Government, led by a Conservative Prime Minister, who are pledged to protect the NHS and put it at their heart. I am proud of that.
Jonathan Reynolds
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the terrible cuts that our local authorities will face in adult social care and other core services will absorb the ring-fenced money for health simply because they will not be able to provide in future the sort of services that they currently provide?
Mr Brine
No, there is absolutely no reason for them to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will make an announcement on council funding, but the Secretary of State for Health has already announced in the comprehensive spending review that the Government have allocated moneys for social care.
I know that the Labour party will try to rubbish our proposals, and that is their choice. My point is this: the people I represent do not care much about how the NHS is structured, but they care a great deal about ensuring that their NHS is there when they need it. They pays their money, and they expect the NHS to be there when they need it, free at the point of use. That is the cornerstone of what we are proposing.
I am very happy to defend outcome-focused, GP-led commissioning for my constituents. Every health care system in the world worthy of the name has the GP-patient relationship at its heart, and our proposals for GP consortiums seek to strengthen that for the sake of all the people we represent. Why on earth would we propose anything different? GP consortiums are an enormous opportunity for the NHS, and the perfect way to further the “no decision about me without me” agenda that is so important. I do not think that that is glib, as an Opposition Member said earlier. It is about rejecting the “Like it or lump it—this is the service you’re going to get” view that we have heard for far too long in our health service.
Rosie Cooper
I would like to state on the record that the expression is glib when it is uttered by a Secretary of State who does not back it up, who does not place patients at the centre, who will not have patients or their elected representatives serving on consortiums and who makes grand statements that are baseless and meaningless.
Mr Brine
I am sorry I gave way; I expected something else. I do not think for one minute that it is glib. We are not suggesting that every single patient will be involved in every single element of their care, but how could anybody disagree with “no decision about me without me”?
GP consortiums are an opportunity for the health service finally to realise one of its original aims—the sophisticated management and prevention of illness through the intelligent use of the patient list. That is still a largely untapped resource in our national health service.
GPs I speak to are up for their new role in commissioning for their patients. Of course they have questions—it would be strange if they did not—but they are not calling, as the Opposition’s motion is, for us to ditch our plans because things have got difficult and they have a fear of change. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They support our plans for more GP involvement in patient care, but call plans for GP consortiums inefficient and secretive.
I see my job as a Member of Parliament as being an important link in helping GPs to answer some of those questions about consortiums that are coming down the line. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met groups of GPs in other areas of the country, and I ask him today to check his inbox because an invitation from me is coming his way.
As we know, following the establishment of GP consortiums, primary care trusts will no longer have NHS commissioning functions. It would be nonsense to create GP consortiums and keep two other tiers of management commissioning alongside them. Investment in the NHS has not been matched by reform. Yes, we will protect NHS investment, but our reform agenda builds on the best of the reform process over the previous 20 years. An Opposition Member said that we reject everything that went on under the previous Government, but of course we do not. We have made that very clear. These proposals build on Labour Government measures such as practice-based commissioning and NHS foundation trusts, and rightly so.
I sometimes hear it said—I heard it put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday morning on the “Today” programme—that the Government’s health policy was a bit of a surprise to everybody. I do not know why that would be. I mentioned earlier that the Health Secretary visited the Royal Hampshire county hospital. That was in May 2008, and he discussed the policy with people there then. He will remember the visit.
Mr Brine
No, I want to finish my remarks. My right hon. Friend will remember discussing with those professionals his ideas, which were published. He referred to those ideas in 2006, and they eventually made it through to our manifesto and the coalition agreement. They certainly should not have been a surprise to anyone who was watching.
I know that my colleagues will all be speaking to their PCTs and strategic health authorities, as am I. I have had a positive dialogue with NHS Hampshire in the months since I was elected, and I pay tribute to its chief executive who takes the responsible view that her job is to ensure that the NHS in Hampshire has what she calls a safe landing and a smooth transition to GP consortiums.
On public health and local accountability, as we know, a key part of the coalition plans for health involve the transfer of public health to local authorities, who will employ a director of public health. I know that these directors will be responsible for health improvement using a ring-fenced public health budget according to the needs of the local population, and I warmly welcome the move. However, I sound a note of caution about local authorities leading in public health. I urge Ministers, perhaps through partnership-working with the Local Government Association, to ensure that councillors are taken into every single step of the process and that sufficient training is given. I know that the cult of the amateur has held sway in many parts of our public service, but this is one area in which we need to support locally elected representatives as much as possible.
As co-chair of the all-party group on breast cancer, it would be remiss of me not to mention the very real concerns that we have about access to specialist nurses in the NHS, which traditionally have been an easy target for cuts. That must not happen under the new arrangements. It would be a false economy for any GP consortium to do that.
The coalition plans for health reform are not a gamble; nor are they ideological. They are about recognising that we live in the shadow of appalling national debts, and we remember where they came from. Protecting the front line, pushing power down to the local level and dealing with the national debt crisis are what “Equity and excellence” is all about, and that is why I will not be supporting the motion.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Let me begin by wishing the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) and his partner well for the pending new arrival. I am sure that they will receive an excellent service in their local NHS hospital, and that the whole House wishes them the very best.
I should like to use this opportunity to raise a few of the concerns that have been brought to my attention by people in my constituency. Many do not fully understand how the new proposals will work to deliver the outcomes we hope for, and I hope that the Minister can answer for them this afternoon. Essentially, people are anxious that where they live and who they are will begin to determine the level and quality of their care.
I am sure we all agree that consistency and guarantees of standards must be an integral part of the operation model that the Government seek to introduce. That is especially important in relation to health outcomes for the poorest and most vulnerable. There is a high level of health inequalities in my constituency. The people who live in the poorest wards suffer much worse health outcomes than those in the better-off wards in the south of the borough of Trafford. The local authority was quite slow to recognise that, so how will health inequalities receive strategic attention in the proposed new structures?
What will be the role of the public health director, who will be placed within the local authority? I am keen to know how that public health role in the local authority will devolve and relate to those at the sharp end in all health settings—those who provide front-line care. I hope that the Minister can fully explain that in his winding-up speech so that my constituents can be clear about it.
My constituents and I are concerned about how the wider drivers of health inequalities—income, education, employment and so on—will be addressed in the new structure, particularly when so many national policies seem to be taking us in the opposite direction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out earlier.
Lisa Nandy
Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the vast inequalities in life expectancy, the lingering issue of care for those who live longer and longer with chronic illnesses needs to be addressed? Those people are suffering now. Does she agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Government have decided to tinker with the structures rather than put in urgent investment to help those people, including people in my constituency of Wigan?
Kate Green
Labour Members want to know whether the money spent on the restructuring of front-line care in our communities is the best use of that money. As the Health Secretary himself pointed out, we continue to have poor health outcomes and standards compared with our European neighbours, so why does it make sense to put more money into reorganisation and less directly into front-line care? I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about that.
The second issue that I want to address involves patient voice. That, too, has been raised in my constituency. A particular concern of mine is to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable are heard. I am concerned about the lack of voice of those who do not have the sharp elbows and the articulacy to speak up for themselves to secure the best for themselves and their families. We know that that is the fate of many in our poorer communities, and especially of those with mental health problems.
I have been told a number of times in my constituency, including by GPs, that GPs are not particularly expert in, or equipped to deal with, mental health needs. How will those patients’ needs be identified, recognised and responded to in the new structure? What help will be available to enable patients to articulate such needs? There is uncertainty in my constituency on the future structure. How will patient voice, choice and opinion feed in to the new model?
The Trafford patient LINk—local involvement network—service is uncertain about its future role and status. I very much hope that Ministers will be able to give us more information about how we will get a clear opportunity for advocacy, so that every patient’s voice can be properly heard, and for proper support for patients who are perhaps less able to articulate their needs and secure services for themselves.
I am concerned also because I know—not just from my constituency, but from my long experience of supporting and working with vulnerable families—that different values pertain among different doctors and practitioners. I am particularly concerned, for example, for the young woman who may present herself to a GP who does not feel it appropriate to offer her advice on contraception or abortion. How can those minimum standards be protected, so that everybody—wherever they live, whoever their doctor is and whatever the structure is—knows that they will be guaranteed the care that they need.
Thirdly, I would like to raise with Ministers the issues that have been raised with me by health practitioners and professionals—and which have been highlighted in this afternoon’s debate—relating to GPs’ ability and willingness to take on the management aspects of their commissioning role. Many GPs have said to me—perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure them this afternoon—that what they see tanking towards them is a heavy burden of management, albeit without the additional resource with which to manage it. Many GPs have said to me that they have not really had the training—they lack the expertise—to be health managers as well as good-quality health practitioners and providers of front-line health care. I am interested to know whether Ministers have plans for training GPs and developing those skills and abilities in GP practices, or whether, as many of us on the Opposition Benches fear, the proposal will in fact be used as an opportunity to privatise that management function. If that is the case—this is not an ideological point, but an efficiency point—I shall be keen to know what financial model Ministers expect to operate if a substantial amount or even a proportion of the money that would otherwise be held in GP practices will go to fund the profits of private providers.
Those are the issues being raised with me in my constituency. They are issues that I am afraid I do not feel equipped to answer, because I do not fully understand how the new structures will work well in practice and, in particular, how they will work well for the poorest.
In concluding, I would like to highlight a point that has been made by a number of my hon. Friends this afternoon. The injection of extra uncertainty and disruption into our national health service at this time is further—and considerably—stretching our capacity to deliver excellent front-line care. I would urge Ministers to listen to the many GPs who have said to me—and who I am sure are saying to them—that what is proposed represents an element of change and disruption that they cannot yet see the benefits of. What they can see is that there is considerable uncertainty in the way that they are now working. There is certainly concern in my primary care trust. I hope that Ministers can offer some reassurance on that point, because at the moment there is considerable instability, and that cannot be good for any patient outcomes.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
This is a period of great challenge for the national health service, and it would be whoever was in government. However, Government Members accused us of not having a care for staff and patients. In fact, it is precisely because we are concerned about staff and patients that we are using this debate to point to all that is problematic—and potentially even disastrous—about the Secretary of State’s proposed NHS reorganisation.
In exploring the gap between what those in government said while in opposition and what they are saying now, we can do no better than refer to a speech that the present Prime Minister gave to the King’s Fund in 2006, in which he set out the five key components of his approach to the NHS—components that, to my knowledge, he has not altered. His first component was that he wanted to guarantee the NHS the money that it needs. Who believes that now? Certainly not the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has noted that not since the 1950s—from April 1951 to March 1956, to be precise—has there been such a small increase in NHS funding; and not the chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, who said:
“A huge range of services and jobs are earmarked for cuts against this urban myth that the NHS is being protected. The evidence is quite clear…this is simply not the case”.
Hon. Members, who, as the weeks turn to months, will see the cuts in their own constituencies, will not believe it either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about what is happening to children’s hospitals. What has not been factored in is the cost of reorganisation, which experts have said will be £3 billion. Ministers have said that their estimate is £1.7 billion, but when asked about the number of redundancies they cannot answer. We know that the cost—
Ms Abbott
No, I must get on.
The cost of redundancies, when they are factored in, will be hundreds of thousands of pounds. We believe that the figure of £1.7 billion will be overshot, and bring greater financial pressure on the NHS.
The second point that the Prime Minister made in 2006 was that he wanted to end the damage caused by pointless and disruptive reorganisation of the NHS. He said:
“We will not mess around with existing local and regional structures”.
So the Secretary of State’s big idea for the NHS was a pointless and disruptive reorganisation.
What do the people who work in the NHS think about that? The Royal College of General Practitioners says:
“our members are not convinced that the scale of the changes proposed is justifiable, especially in the context of cost reductions”.
The British Medical Association
“questions whether a less disruptive, more cost-effective process could have achieved the aims of reducing bureaucracy”.
The Royal College of Midwives says that it is
“very disappointed that despite pre-election promises to end…top-down reorganisation…the White Paper focuses far more on structures than it does on care delivery.”
The reorganisation is high-cost, high-risk and contrary to everything that was said by those who are now Ministers in the run-up to the election. They have accused us of being confused and incoherent, but it is their reorganisation that is confused and incoherent. Every professional body echoes that thought.
The Prime Minister said that he wanted to
“work with the grain of the Government’s reforms…So we will go further in increasing the power and independence of GPs and PCTs”.
He has gone so far that he has left GPs behind, and only one in four believe that the reorganisation will improve patient care. As for PCTs, contrary to the Government’s promises when in Opposition, they have abolished them.
What was the Prime Minister’s fourth point about his main driving aims for the NHS? He said that he wanted to
“take the politics out of the management of the NHS”.
There could not be a more political reorganisation. It is driven by ideology and a belief in free market ideology. As the chair of the BMA, Hamish Meldrum, said:
“If the Government is truly committed to reducing waste and inefficiency, their proposals for NHS reform should focus less on competition and more on a co-operative approach on delivering health care.”
Finally in his 2006 speech the Prime Minister said that his main commitment on the NHS was
“fair funding to the NHS…We will end political meddling…removing the scope for fiddling”.
We will see how much the scope for fiddling is removed when money is moved from the NHS budget to local authorities for social care.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) all expanded on what is problematic about the reorganisation. The Secretary of State began by posing as the friend of patients and those who work in the NHS. I will not take lectures from him on that. My mother came to this country as a pupil nurse from Jamaica in the 1950s. She was part of that generation of West Indian women who helped to build the national health service. Government Members cannot talk to us about the people who work in the NHS. As for patients, are Ministers listening to the patient groups—people who represent children, people who represent the elderly, and people who represent those with mental health problems—about their concern about what the reorganisation will mean for them?
This reorganisation is ill thought out and, at a time of tremendous financial stress in the national health service, ill timed. We believe that Government Members have been lulled into a false sense of security about what is to come. They believe that although students might be marching and the Church might be in uproar, the NHS is safe. I put it to them that, as the weeks turn to months and we move through the winter, and as we begin to see winter bed pressures, the consequences of this ill-thought-out, unnecessary, top-down reorganisation will reverberate not only in this Chamber but in the surgeries of Government Members and of all Members of this House. I am proud to support the motion.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
This has been a revealing debate. Labour has come to the House today to make the case for the status quo—the case for standing still. Labour is here defending a failed status quo. We have heard Labour Members presenting to the House a number of extraordinary claims and grotesque caricatures of the Government’s plans. They want to defend a failed status quo in which the NHS has been spending at European levels but has been so tied up in red tape that it has not delivered European levels of quality health care.
For 13 years, Labour tested to destruction the idea that the NHS was best run from Whitehall. The record speaks for itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) talked about cancer survival rates, and it is nothing short of a scandal that cancer survival rates in this country lag so far behind the best in Europe. If the status quo is right, as Labour Members seem to be arguing, why are a staggering 23% of cancer patients diagnosed only when they turn up as emergencies? Why is that an acceptable outcome?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course; there is still more to do to improve health and to improve the NHS, but can I just check something? Did I hear him right? Did he say that the NHS had failed?
Paul Burstow
No, I said that the Opposition had failed and that they were defending a failed status quo. Let me give the House an example of a failed status quo. If the NHS were performing at the level of the best in Europe, 10,000 more lives could be saved every year. This is what our focus on outcomes is all about. It is what patient-reported outcomes are all about, too.
We all agree that elderly patients should be treated with dignity and compassion, yet for far too many, that is not what happens in practice. Just last week, a report on patient deaths found that 61% of older people received “inadequate” care in their final days. After 13 years of a Labour Government, the NHS is in the bottom third in Europe in dealing with dementia—way behind Ireland, Spain and Portugal.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As the Minister will know, the independent public inquiry into Stafford hospital is taking place in my constituency at the moment, and the matters that he has just mentioned are highly relevant to that. Will he give the House an undertaking that the evidence given to that inquiry will inform the debate on the forthcoming Bill?
Paul Burstow
We will, of course, follow the inquiry closely and ensure that we learn lessons from it. We would not have set up the inquiry if we did not intend to learn lessons.
Labour’s legacy is a demoralised and disempowered work force. Reforms have been half implemented, and billions of pounds have been wasted on a flawed NHS IT programme. This Government are clear that the NHS can be so much better than it is today—spending better and doing better both for patients and for the taxpayer. It is this Government’s purpose to liberate the NHS so that it can deliver health care that is among the best in the world, to learn the lessons of Labour’s top-down target-driven approach to health care, to reverse the obsessive focus on process that has stifled innovation and created dependency in the system, and to move away once and for all from a culture that measures success by ticking boxes, hitting the target but missing the point.
Labour talked about reforming the NHS and making it more patient centred, but its reforms were half-hearted, lacking coherence and a clear purpose. Reforms such as the introduction of foundation trusts, practice-based commissioning groups and patient choice, which promised so much, did not deliver under Labour.
Frank Dobson
If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely committed to getting away from top-down impositions, will he now formally abandon the top-down proposal to take £16 million away from the Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, as I was coming on to deal with the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). We are all here to say, rightly, that we want the best from our NHS—dedication from our staff of professionals and creativity from front-line staff. Both the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about that, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the review of top-up tariffs started under Labour. [Hon. Members: “So what?”] Yes, it was in the NHS operating framework under Labour. We will complete that review and we are engaged constructively with the foundation trusts, but I think the right hon. Gentleman should have a conversation with his own Front-Bench team before he attacks the Government Front-Bench team.
Our proposals build on reforms such as practice-based commissioning, patient choice, foundation trusts, tariffs and social enterprise, and they hold true to the founding principles of the NHS—that it is free at the point of delivery, and not based on ability to pay.
Freeing front-line staff from the tyranny of process targets is another issue. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) was right to talk about the need to build on the knowledge of general practices and help them to shape services to fit local need and deliver quality outcomes.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about health inequalities and how they had widened in her constituency under Labour. That is why the Government are forging new relationships between the NHS and local government, making common cause on public health so that we can see it not only as a matter of medical health but as part of a far wider attack on the determinants of ill health in the first place. That makes local government entirely the right place to start.
We must ensure that collaboration takes place. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) talked about collaboration between health and social care becoming the norm rather than the exception, as it is today. We need to increase local accountability for health care decision making. Yes, we also need to empower patients and provide more choice and more control. Through HealthWatch, a champion for patients and service users, we should make sure that the seldom heard, too, are heard in decision making.
Andrew George
My hon. Friend rightly makes much of the need to stop the top-down reorganisations of the past and to emphasise the importance of having patient-centred structures. In that light, if a local area preferred to graft in clinical engagement in the management of the existing PCT and greater patient involvement in the structure, would he accept that as an alternative to the sort of top-down reorganisation that the Government currently propose?
Paul Burstow
It will be very much up to the consortiums to decide how to configure their governance. What we have said is that this is about the devolution of power. My hon. Friend was not against the devolution of power to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, yet this is about the same thing—shifting power away from this Front Bench and Whitehall and putting it back into the hands of patients and clinicians. Those clinicians will be engaged in commissioning, as we need them to be.
Much has been made of accountability. Under Labour, the NHS lacked it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) really should reflect more on what was done under Labour, because there was a huge democratic deficit. We will have greater transparency and, through our new council health and well-being boards, genuine democratic accountability.
In the Labour motion before us today, it is wrongly claimed that the NHS has not been protected and that promises have been broken. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred to the 1950s, but I would refer her to the 1970s, when Labour was busily cutting back—
Paul Burstow
No. The hon. Gentleman arrived very late and was not in his place for much of the debate.
We heard a breathtaking attack from Labour Members who argued against ring-fencing. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, we heard the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) say:
“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms within the overall financial envelope”.
That was, and is, Labour’s view—cuts to the NHS. That is not the coalition’s view. That is why the NHS will get real-terms growth. Yes, it is a tough settlement; yes, there needs to be scope for increased productivity; and yes, management costs in the system need to be reduced. The Government, however, are determined to ensure that we reform the national health service, deliver the clinical engagement and deliver the change that will make the service better for our public. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Question put.
Funding and Schools Reform
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The time limit on speeches by Back Benchers will be seven minutes in this debate.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government is pursuing a reform agenda in education that represents an ideological gamble with successful services and has failed to honour the pledges made to deliver a pupil premium on top of a protected schools budget, and to deliver protected schools funding per pupil; is concerned that schools in deprived areas will lose out from the new funding mechanism; notes the unprecedented cuts of 60 per cent. to the schools capital budget, and is deeply concerned at the impact this will have on children, families and communities; supports empowerment of parents and their involvement in school planning but is concerned over a lack of accountability in the setting up of new schools under Government plans; is further concerned that this model will not represent efficient use of public resources in a time of austerity; disputes Government claims that these reforms are a continuation of Labour’s successful reform agenda; and calls on the Government to work with families, teachers and communities to deliver improved standards of learning and teaching in all local schools.
We have just heard how the Government are preparing to take a huge gamble with our national health service, but the same is true in schools. In health and education we see the same emerging pattern in public service reform: a free market experiment brought in at breakneck speed with scant supporting evidence at a time of financial stress, and a real risk of good services being destabilised. There is a drive to atomise services and to unpick the fabric that holds together a successful NHS and the schools system in England. We can say what we like about the Department of Health, but at least it publishes a White Paper before rushing to reform. In education the ideological zeal is not constrained by the established processes of government.
Until recently, the Secretary of State has enjoyed a licence and latitude that other Ministers can only dream of: a big contract given to a former adviser without the troublesome requirement of a proper tendering process; a controversial education Bill rammed through Parliament in 62 days using procedures normally reserved for counter-terrorism; school building projects chopped in a casual and carefree manner, with inaccurate lists published day after day; and the services of experts who have given a decade of distinguished service to the cause of school sport dispensed with without even the courtesy of a meeting. Such things might be acceptable in the world of newspapers, but that is no way to run a Government Department.
Today, we are glad—I see that the Secretary of State is delighted, too—to give the House the opportunity to hold the Secretary of State and his Ministers to account. He has rushed into reform without listening to parents or to students and teachers and he needs to pause for breath and to take stock. First, I shall deal with the broken promises and the idea that schools are protected. Then, I shall challenge the Secretary of State’s overall direction of travel, which I believe amounts to a dismantling of state education in England as we have known it.
So, let us start with where it all started to go wrong for the Secretary of State: Building Schools for the Future.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is obviously going to explain why he thinks that the reforms proposed by the coalition Government are incorrect, but is he no longer one of the reformers on his Benches? If he is still a reformer, will he say, however briefly—I know that he quite rightly wants to focus on the Government—how he would seek to reform and improve an education system that lets down too many children?
Andy Burnham
As the hon. Gentleman sees more of his Government, he will perhaps come to understand the difference between real reform and reckless reform. Indeed, the House has just been hearing about the achievements of a reformed national health service under my watch and I can tell him that I am very proud of them.
Let me start with Building Schools for the Future and the charge that I lay at the Secretary of State’s door. He has got into a mess and the allocation of capital is no longer driven by educational need but by ideology. Building Schools for the Future was a needs-led approach to the allocation of capital. Instead, he wanted to use capital as bait to lure schools into his new structural models, but then came the spending review.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Why were fewer than 100 schools rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future under the last Labour Government?
Andy Burnham
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to any of those schools, but if he has seen the transformation in those communities and the messages that the schools send to children in areas that have, frankly, been let down for decades, I am surprised that he rises to his feet to say that that investment is not worth making. Let us talk about his Government and the spending review arrangements that his Secretary of State has recently secured: minus 60%. Let us just think about that figure for a moment.
Just after the spending review, the Financial Times reported senior Whitehall figures chiding the Secretary of State for
“folding too early in negotiations over capital”
spending. The only shock for me on reading that was to learn that he had been negotiating at all. We know that he is courteous, and we like that about him, but minus 60%? I can almost hear him now, politely inviting George and Danny to fill their boots. Is 60% enough? Do they want more? I doubt that the Secretary of State has played much poker in his life—although he has his poker face on now—but, as with sport in schools, it gives a person certain life skills and I recommend it to him.
The average capital reduction across Whitehall was 30%. I would think that everyone in education could live with that. But double the punishment? How exactly does that minus 60% reduction meet the Secretary of State’s “schools protected” claim?
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend surprised at the Government’s announcements, given the fact that the previous Tory Government spent nothing on schools? There are those of us who can remember tumbling-down buildings that leaked and needed the massive repairs that were put in by the Labour Government.
Andy Burnham
In the 1980s, I had the misfortune to go to a comprehensive school in my hon. Friend’s constituency—a Merseyside comprehensive. It was not a great deal of fun. School sport had dried up and the buildings were appalling. It fills me with dread that my children will go to secondary school under a Tory Government. We on the Opposition Benches will campaign to ensure that another generation is not failed as others were.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will not let this occasion pass without putting right the gross calumny against our Building Schools for the Future policy. It was not a school-building policy; it was a policy to let every local authority in our land have a vision of the transformation of education right across their community. That is what the Government are killing and that is why it is important to oppose them.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend is right. It was a new approach and we must give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who said when he was a Schools Minister, “Let’s do it differently—let’s not give out capital in a piecemeal fashion.” My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is nodding because he was in the Department at the time. Our approach was to go to the places where aspirations were lowest and young people did not have a great expectation of what life might give them, and build the best possible learning environment. That is why we should not listen to the nonsense that is spoken from the Government Benches. Building Schools for the Future has transformed many communities. It could have done more if the Government had stuck by its needs-led approach to capital allocation.
The sad thing about the Secretary of State’s negotiating failure is that it has direct and unpleasant consequences for schools and councils. Within hours of the Chancellor’s sitting down, there were panicked phone calls asking for 40% cuts to projects that only weeks before had been approved by the Secretary of State as unaffected. Why? Because what was left of his capital budget was needed to push towards his pet projects—or as we should now more accurately say, his pet shop projects. The losers, yet again, are schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country: Sandwell, Birmingham, Salford, Leicester and Nottingham.
Andy Burnham
I could go on. There are more.
Last week, I went to the Wodensborough technology college in Sandwell—a great school, battling against the odds. The Secretary of State is nodding, but he has not been to Sandwell. Since the summer, he has promised many times that he will go there, so I hope he is nodding because he will actually do so. When he was at his conference in Birmingham he was not far away. We hope he will go to Sandwell.
The college has been thrown into limbo by the 40% demand that is now being made of local authorities. After all the chaos to Building Schools for the Future that the Secretary of State caused in such authorities back in the summer, it is barely believable that he is coming back for another bite of their funding.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Can my right hon. Friend imagine the reaction in schools in my constituency, such as Birley and Handsworth Grange? They heard the Secretary of State’s announcement before the recess and believed that their school programmes would go ahead, yet in October, only a few weeks later, they were told to find a 40% cut in schemes that had already been designed. That does not merely destroy the aspirations and hopes of young people; it is ridiculous and a complete waste of money to have a school designed to such an advanced stage and then cut the programme at the last minute. People cannot find 40% efficiency savings at the drop of a hat.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend puts it well. Let us get to the facts. Those schools were told in the summer that they were unaffected. We can work out what “unaffected” means to most people, but the effect of what the Secretary of State has done by coming back for another bite is that he is asking schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency to abandon their ambitions for their children so that the right hon. Gentleman can fulfil his ideological ambitions to give funding to whichever schools come asking for it because it ticks the box—it comes forward with the structural form of which he approves.
That is very wrong. Today, if nothing else, I want the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and honour a moral obligation, as he has just heard, to the 600 schools that he approved as unaffected. That must mean what it says. Let them get on without the requirement to make unwelcome savings. Instead, the phone calls from his officials have made them scrabble round for cuts. I heard that one school was thinking of stopping the purchase of all new furniture. Is that what the Secretary of State really wants schools to do? It is mean-spirited. I hope he will honour the commitments that he has made and let them get on and build a better future.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any academic or empirical study which directly links the capital expenditure under Building Schools for the Future with enhanced educational attainment? If not, why does he think that that is the case?
Andy Burnham
It is depressing to hear such nonsense from the Government Benches after all these years. Is the hon. Gentleman saying to me that it is acceptable for a school to have leaking roofs or to have no playing field? Is he saying that office blocks are fine for schools? I disagree. I believe that we can do better for our children. If that is a call to cut off the funding to deprived authorities, he should be utterly ashamed of himself.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) could enlighten the House by pointing us to any private schools that have outside toilets and leaking roofs.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend makes the point. We should aspire to the best possible environment for every single child in this country. We should start where aspiration, expectation and ambition are lowest and transform what those children have. I remember a child in my constituency going into a new school and saying, “It’s too good for us.” That is what we need to challenge and break down. The depressing comments from the Conservatives show that they have no understanding of the message that the environment sends to a young person.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Aintree Davenhill primary school in my constituency is near where my right hon. Friend used to live. Phase 1 of the rebuild is nearly completed, but phase 2 is yet to be approved by the Government. If phase 2 does not go ahead, the children there will be left to learn in a corrugated iron hut, which is freezing at this time of year and boiling hot in the summer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not the kind of facility in which our children should expect to learn?
Andy Burnham
It most certainly is not, although the Conservatives do not seem to mind, as far as I can tell. Such a facility is too good for our children, as far as I can make out.
Schools all over the country are in chaos because the Department promised a capital review to clear up the problems and give clarity to schools. Instead, schools all over the country are in limbo, waiting to hear. I hope they will hear some clarity from the right hon. Gentleman today. It is clear that he has made a mess of the capital budget, but I hope he will acknowledge today the anxiety in schools right now about revenue budgets for next year.
“Schools protected” was the headline that schools wanted on spending review day, but here is the second charge that I lay at the door of the Secretary of State: has he not raised expectations that he now cannot fulfil? As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, when rising pupil numbers are taken into account, the “Schools protected” headline turns into a 2.25% real-terms per pupil cut. Further changes to funding may mean it is far worse for some schools. Specialist schools fear losing the extra money that comes with their status. I hope that today the Secretary of State may provide them with some clarity on that.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Can there be any worse con perpetrated on parents than the cast-iron guarantee that the Lib Dems and the Secretary of State gave on the pupil premium? Is not that a classic example of a promise that did not last until the ink had dried?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend anticipates me, because that is precisely the issue that I was about to come on to.
The big issue facing all schools is the effect that the pupil premium will have on their budgets. The rush to bring in this new system could cause real volatility in budgets. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us how he is planning to avoid that. It happened to us when we made changes to school budgets; these things need to be done carefully. We acknowledge that problems can arise, but I hope that he will give me, and schools, some reassurance that the Department will have measures in hand to protect schools from very marked swings in their budgets.
As I told the House on Monday, experts are predicting that schools in the most deprived parts of the country stand to be the biggest losers from the much vaunted pupil premium—amazing, given all the claims made for it by the Liberal Democrats, but, it would seem, true. Today I visited a secondary school in Walthamstow which, by any measure, faces some of the biggest challenges of any school. It has double the national average of pupils on free school meals and with special educational needs. It is very important that the House hears what the pupil premium might mean for them—might mean, because we do not know yet. The school estimates—[Interruption.] I do not know what the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), is chuntering about. This is coming directly from schools. If she listens to this, she might be able to change things and do something about it. The school estimates that it is set to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds under the pupil premium. That is supported by the IFS, which has calculated that the pupil premium could be 2.5 times higher in Wokingham than in Tower Hamlets. It says that schools in more deprived areas would receive noticeably less in percentage terms than similarly deprived schools in less deprived areas.
May I ask Liberal Democrats to examine their consciences before final decisions are made on this issue? Is this really the effect that they wanted for their pupil premium—to take money off kids for whom life is already hardest?
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I have been listening closely to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about what may or may not be in the pupil premium based on the suppositions that he is making. After more than a decade of his Government, pupils in my part of the country were getting much less than the national average despite its having the lowest wages in the country. What did his Government do about that when they had the chance? At least the pupil premium is an attempt at a better suggestion.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Labour Government did nothing for education funding in Cornwall—that is an astonishing claim. I hope that he accepts that the needs of schools vary in different parts of the country. I am not arguing that we had perfection, but we did take steps to improve funding for schools all over the country.
Let me deal, right now, with what the pupil premium will do to schools, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s area.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We hear a lot about fairness from this coalition. It would be completely unfair if a school in a deprived area were to miss out in order to shift money to another school in another area. We should not be playing one school off against another. Should we not hear from the Secretary of State that there will be a minimum by which no school will miss out, and that the pupil premium will be additional money that does not come at the expense of other schools?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I have invited the Secretary of State to set out how he will ensure that no school sees a huge loss of funding to the pupil premium, with that then causing a problem in terms of service continuation.
As I said, I ask the Liberal Democrats to examine their consciences, and I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was thinking about it. If they do not, for goodness’ sake they should speak up and show that they have some influence in the Government. They should speak up for the kids in the school that I went to this morning. We need to hear their voice to ensure that the pupil premium is what we were told it would be. At the moment, it is nothing more than a con.
The real trouble is that we do not have a new and additional pupil premium at all. The danger for the Liberal Democrats is that this issue goes to the very heart of the politics of the coalition. In the post-election talks with Labour, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) told my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) that he had secured from the Conservatives a pupil premium additional to a schools budget protected in real terms. Let there be no debate about that—that was what the Liberal Democrats said they had secured.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central, told the House many times that that would indeed be delivered. Well after the coalition talks, on 7 June, she told us that it would involve
“substantial extra money from outside the education budget.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 15.]
That was meant to be the Liberal Democrats’ big win, and it was paraded as the consolation prize on the day of the tuition fees announcement. The painful truth for them is that they have failed to deliver it. They have been chewed up and spat out by the Tories. We are now looking at a pupil premium that will take money off her constituency in Brent, where more than 20% of kids are on free school meals, and give it to the Secretary of State’s constituency in Surrey, where less than 10% of children receive them. That Liberal Democrat fig leaf of credibility for staying in the coalition has been snatched away.
Because the education budget is not rising—it is falling in real terms—the pupil premium is simply a relabelling of existing funding. There will be more losers than winners. The IFS estimates that 60% of primary school children and 80% of secondary school children will be in schools whose real budgets are cut. On the day when the budgets for those schools land, the “Schools protected” spin will be wearing very thin indeed.
The problem with this ministerial team is that they simply have not got a grip on the detail. They simply do not know what the changes will mean for schools. However, the situation is still worse than that. They are also obsessed with costly, untested structural reform. That lethal combination of incompetence and ideology is toxic for our schools. The Government’s preoccupation with structures risks a loss of focus on standards. Under Labour, school standards rose year on year, with some of the highest ever results at every stage and the best ever results this year in GCSEs and A-levels. In 1997, half of all schools fell below the basic benchmark of 30% of students getting five good GCSEs graded A to C. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members speaking up, but those were our schools and our children in our constituencies that were being failed. Many children were leaving school without any hope of a better life—that was the reality.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Is it not accepted that in science, for instance, the UK has gone from fourth to 14th position? In literacy we have gone from seventh to 17th, and in mathematics from eighth to 24th. That has to mean we have less, not more.
Andy Burnham
I must say, the hon. Gentleman’s literacy was very impressive there when he read the Whips’ handout. He almost read it word for word, and he did not have any help.
The hon. Gentleman cannot deny the figures that I have just read out, which show a transformation in our secondary schools. Half of schools were not achieving the basic benchmark in 1997, but today it is fewer than one in 12. Just think how many thousands of kids have hope of a better life because of that transformation in our schools, particularly in our most deprived communities.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what the reality was in some of the most deprived schools, because I was teaching in some of them. Children were forced on to courses that they did not want to be on simply to shove up standards, and the gap between the best and worst-performing schools widened over Labour’s time in office. The reality is that in the area in which I used to teach, children are less likely to progress socially than those from schools elsewhere. Statistics and figures are one thing; the reality is something very different.
Andy Burnham
The reality is very different. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that head teachers and teachers in primary schools in his constituency would say that there has been no change in primary schools in the past 10 years? Is he really saying that secondary schools have not improved? The figures tell us what has happened. Am I saying, “It’s all perfect”? No, I am not, because more needs to be done. We turned failing schools into good schools and I am very proud of what we as a Government achieved for some of the most deprived children in our country.
It is encouraging that the right hon. Gentleman told the national children and adult services conference recently that he will set new minimum standards for schools—we welcome that continuation of Labour’s successful national challenge programme— but he is about to take huge risks with all the progress that we made. One area on which we should both agree is that excellent teaching is the surest route to the highest standards.
It was with some surprise that I heard the Secretary of State confirm to the House on Monday that his free schools will be able to use public money to hire whomsoever they like to teach, with no teaching qualification requirement. When he took up the job, he said that teachers should have a good 2:1 degree. He should be consistent in this important area: investing in our teacher work force is of fundamental importance to good school standards.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the record of higher standards under the Labour Government. Like me, I am sure that he welcomes the fact that young people from the poorest areas are 30% more likely to go on to higher education than they were five years ago. Does he agree that not only higher standards but education maintenance allowances played a significant role in encouraging people to stay on at school, perhaps for the first time in a family? What will be the effect of the Government’s plans to abolish education maintenance allowances?
Andy Burnham
I am glad that my right hon. Friend raises that issue. I will spend a moment on EMAs. As we heard at education questions on Monday, the EMA is the subject of huge concern among Labour Members. It is feared that it will be pared back or, worse, taken away.
The Secretary of State is good with words and is good at making big commitments, but I want to see some follow-through—I want him to stand by what he says. Young people will look to what he or I say, so that they can have trust in politics and in this place. In an interview in The Guardian on 2 March—just before the election—he said:
“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won't.”
Andy Burnham
The right hon. Gentleman nods, because he obviously acknowledges the veracity of the quote. Why is such a move acceptable now? Before the election, he made that statement to the young people who receive EMA, some of whom might be watching these proceedings. What are they to make of such a statement? It sounded commendably clear before the election, but now that crucial support is being removed. Throughout Education questions on Monday, his Minister spoke in an offhand way of the dead-weight cost of EMA. If I understood him correctly, he meant that 90% of young people would have gone into post-16 studies anyway. For young people who come from homes where incomes are low and do not have much support, this allowance can mean the difference between having to get a part-time job or having to walk to college because they cannot afford the bus fare. The EMA allows them to focus on their studies, which gives young kids from backgrounds where life is hardest the chance to exceed expectations and excel in further and higher education. When I heard the Minister on Monday, I did not feel he had any appreciation of the fact that the EMA makes it easier for those young people to fulfil their potential and be the best that they can be.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Since 2004, more than 22,000 people in Tower Hamlets, where my constituency is, and nearly 500,000 people across London, have received the EMA. Only last night, a constituent, who is now reading law, told me that he could not have studied without the EMA. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, throughout the country, those on low incomes will be prevented from taking up higher education places if the matter is not reconsidered? I make a plea to the Government to think again.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Labour Members have been struck by the concern among young people about the EMA. Taken with the tuition fees announcement, the one on the EMA is having a depressing effect on the aspirations of young people who have least. That is the great worry about what is happening. I hope that the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s words.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Given those young people’s anxiety and the increase in tuition fees to £9,000, does my right hon. Friend think it acceptable that the schools Minister seems happy to sit using her BlackBerry?
Andy Burnham
That is not acceptable, nor is it acceptable to chunter and object throughout when many of the points that have been made should be listened to. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) did so much work on the EMA and on lifting young people’s hopes in constituencies such as his.
We must also take into account the changes in child benefit for families with a higher earner because, although they may not be eligible for the EMA, some give the child benefit to the young person in further or higher education, which helps young people get through. The removal of child benefit will further damage staying-on rates.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the EMA. Will he give me some statistical evidence that directly relates improvement in educational attainment to the EMA?
Andy Burnham
I am looking through my notes—I do not want to cite the wrong figure. There is evidence that 18,500 young people stayed on at school who would not have done so without that financial support. That means 18,500 young people with the hope of a better life because of the EMA. Why do the Government want to abolish it? I am lost for words.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
If Government Members are looking for evidence, a collection of college principals in north-east England wrote to me asking me to point out to the Government at every stage the real dangers that they perceive to youngsters going into further education from the abolition of the EMA. That applies across the board in the north-east.
Andy Burnham
There is evidence, so we will write to the hon. Lady with it. There is supposedly a successor scheme, but, if the Government are to replace the EMA, will she and others on the Government Benches ensure that it is with something that gives young people some hope? If the proposal is simply to cut support to the poorest, she will set back the cause of opportunity for all in this country.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
If my right hon. Friend is looking for evidence, I suggest the case of one young woman in my constituency whom I helped during the election campaign. She came to me, worried about her EMA, which she had trouble getting from the school. I helped her with the head teacher. I later found out that she was the sole carer for her mother, who was blind. She would have gone to school anyway, because she was utterly determined, but the EMA gave her and her mother a quality of life that they did not know previously.
Andy Burnham
Listening to the responsible Minister on Monday at Education questions, one would have come to the conclusion that he had no appreciation at all of the effect the EMA could have on a young person’s life in those circumstances. I said that the Government should listen to students. I hope that they will, and that they will meet some young people who currently benefit from the EMA such as the person about whom my hon. Friend just spoke. The EMA is a lifeline. For young carers, who have been in the news this week, it represents the hope of a better future, and I hope that the Government will not wipe away their hopes and dreams.
Mr Sheerman
One of the big consultancies—I believe it was PricewaterhouseCoopers—conducted a full evaluation of the relationship between the EMA and improvements in rates of staying on and entering university, and in evidence given earlier this year to the Children, Schools and Families Committee, which I chaired, made it clear that that relationship was very positive.
Andy Burnham
I hope that the Government will take account of my hon. Friend’s point because there is good evidence to show that the policy has been a success and is helping many more young people stay on in education and achieve.
Mr Watts
Is my right hon. Friend as depressed as I am about the fact that the Government seem to be saying that financial assistance to families does not matter, the poor state of school buildings does not matter and the overall funding package for education does not matter? What seems to matter is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are determined to cut education spending and push people back into deprivation.
Andy Burnham
That is the inference that people will draw. There is an obsession with structures, not with standards or with helping young people to be the best they can be. I would like to hear the Secretary of State talk a little more about that and a little less about free schools and whatever structural ideas he is dreaming up. Let us focus on standards and on the aspiration of kids from a working-class background. Let us give them some hope rather than introducing organisational reforms that may or may not offer them anything. That is the problem the Secretary of State is facing.
Steve McCabe
I would like to help the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who asked about the EMA. Did not the Institute for Fiscal Studies publish a report showing a rise of six percentage points in the number of EMA recipients getting level 2 qualifications? That is hardly a Labour party assertion, is it?
Andy Burnham
Not at all, and the report also showed specific improvement among groups who have traditionally under-achieved in post-16 education. The Government seem to be saying that this evidence is simply to be disregarded because a political decision has been made. At times, I get the feeling from this Government that if a reform was introduced by Labour, they just want to wipe it away, even if it was successful. They want to do something different. [Interruption.] Well, we shall talk about school sport in a minute, and I think they are also guilty of the charge on that issue.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Evidence from the IFS and the CfBT Education Trust clearly demonstrates that the EMA has benefited students. As a former principal of a sixth-form college, I have seen the impact on students. We did our own evaluation, which showed higher attendance among students on the EMA than among those who were not, and a direct correlation between their attendance and attainment.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend makes an important point. His experience matches exactly that of my brother, the vice-principal of a sixth-form college in St Helens. The change to EMA needs to be looked at alongside potential changes to the funding of post-16 education—the funding available to sixth-form and FE colleges—because it could have a very damaging effect. There is also a rumour—I do not know whether it is true—that people will no longer get free A-levels beyond the age of 18. Will the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning address that point today? All those proposals will combine to take away opportunities.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
I am now going to wind up my remarks. Some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues will be happy about that, even if he is not.
The Government’s policy is an ideological gamble. Schools will be able to use money to employ whomsoever they like, even if that person has no qualifications, in any premises, which, as we have heard, might include converted prisons, bingo halls, hairdressers and pet shops.
What guarantees do parents have that the Secretary of State’s free schools will have the highest standards? What guarantees do they have that they can hold those schools to account if they do not meet such standards? The truth is that free schools are a risky ideological experiment being pushed through at speed with a lack of reliable evidence. Is not there a real danger that one person’s decision to create a free school will undermine existing good provision in an area and a school’s ability to improve?
Should not access to safe outdoor space and sports facilities be a right for every single child?
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that I have the misfortune that the local authority in my area is one of the ideological dustbins of the Conservative party. It adopts all these initiatives, so we have three of the 16 new free schools, but there are no suitable sites for them. Existing community organisations are being evicted from their premises so that a few free schools can take them over, despite the fact that their catchment areas are outside the borough and the area. How is that localism or parent choice? Is it not the triumph of ideology over education standards?
Andy Burnham
I had the good fortune to meet head teachers from my hon. Friend’s constituency very soon after I came into this job. They told me how that cluster of free schools could undermine other local schools. I am at a loss, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State can help me. Why is a school specialising in Latin exactly what Acton needs? I am yet to be persuaded that that is the best route for modern education in west London.
I mentioned outdoor space. A good example of schools achieving more together than they can alone is sport. School sports partnerships are a wonderful example of schools working together. The Australians have described our system as world class. I urge the Secretary of State to think again on that. School sports partnerships, which created a new delivery system for school sport, have worked well and given more opportunities to young people. I hope that he is open to the arguments of Darren Campbell and others who are pleading with him to keep that infrastructure rather than dismantle it.
My worry is that in the long term the free school experiment will lead to a much more segregated schools system—a splintered system in which narrow social groups impart a narrow world view. Are we heading towards an unaccountable free-for-all in our local education systems? Experience in Sweden suggests that the Secretary of State’s schools will have a negative impact on standards.
Andy Burnham
I will not.
I have never heard how that negative impact will be addressed in the Secretary of State’s world view, in which schools are free to fail. I am worried that he is creating a world where each school exists within a walled garden, with no obligation to other schools. The local authority co-ordinating role is important, and I cannot see why the Government want simply to wipe it away with a national funding formula. Local authorities look out for the needs of all children within an area, including the vulnerable and the voiceless. Who will speak up for them in his brave new world?
My vision is of a truly comprehensive education system, in which there is diversity of provision, and in which we help all children to be the best that they can be. I want a collaborative rather than a competitive system, and I want all schools to recognise their obligations to each other. I am worried that the Secretary of State is creating an elitist education system.
We fear that Sure Start centres are about to close, and we heard today that the pupil premium will take money from some of the most deprived communities in our country. We have just had a debate on how the Government’s policy on EMA could depress aspirations, particularly those of working-class kids. We have heard that the Secretary of State, in closed meetings in Westminster, has nodded and winked to the effect that his foot is hovering over the pedal when it comes to allowing more selection and allowing grammar schools to use the free school route to set up more grammar schools. He needs to come clean on those things. Does he want to create a more elitist system, where opportunities exist for the few but not the many?
That is the Opposition’s critique of the Secretary of State. We have had broken promises and free market reforms with no evidence, and there is a whiff of elitism in everything the Department introduces. That spells danger for our schools. We need a plan not just for some schools, but for all schools. That is what our motion is about, and I commend it to the House.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
May I offer a few words of heartfelt thanks to the shadow Secretary of State? Today we announced a radical extension of academy freedoms for many more schools, allowing weaker schools to be supported by stronger schools, in a culture of collaboration that drives up standards for all. This afternoon, in No. 10 Downing street, I, along with the Prime Minister, met hundreds of head teachers in the state system who have taken advantage of academy freedoms to drive up standards not just for their children, but for others in their local areas. After that morning good-news announcement and that afternoon celebration, I ask myself: what could we do to top it? I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to explain to the House of Commons the radical, comprehensive reform programme that we are introducing that will help to transform opportunity for the very poorest.
Michael Gove
There are three Opposition Members who are eager to intervene. It is difficult to know to which of these young lads I will now give the opportunity to shine.
Mr Watts
May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman go to Specsavers?
The Secretary of State has said that he has met a group of head teachers from academies. Will he meet the other hundreds of head teachers who are desperately waiting to see whether their schools will be modernised and the holes in their roofs fixed? Will he be as keen to meet them as he has been to meet the academy heads?
Michael Gove
I am always keen to meet head teachers, and the more head teachers I meet, the more I find that they say the same things: that under this Government, they are at last being treated properly. At last, in the words of Mike Spinks, a head teacher from Stretford and Urmston, the baseball batting of bureaucracy has ended. At last, in the words of Patricia Sowter, a head teacher from the Labour constituency of Edmonton, head teachers are being given the opportunity to do what they have always done, which is to stress the importance of helping the very poorest. At last, in the words of Sir Michael Wilshaw, a head teacher who teaches in the Labour constituency represented by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), we have a Government who are on the side of extending academy freedoms. I talk to head teachers all the time. When I do, the one thing I say to them is: “You’ve got a Government who’re on your side,” and the one thing that I hear from them is: “At last.”
Michael Gove
Later.
The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) asked whether I played poker. I have to confess that when I was growing up and learning card games, poker was somewhat frowned upon at the Kirk socials that I attended, although we did play the odd game of knockout whist. One of the things that I learned in card games is that one has to play the hand that one is dealt. What was the hand that we were dealt by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues? Credit agencies ready to downgrade our debt; a £150 billion deficit; and a letter, left by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, saying that there is no money left. I know that that is painful for Opposition Members to hear, but it is even more painful for the people in our school system who have been let down by the profligacy, arrogance and extravagance of a party that still does not have the humility to say sorry for debauching our finances.
Mr McFadden
The Secretary of State mentioned the academy programme. I am a supporter of the academy programme that the Labour Government introduced. It gave hope and higher standards to children who had not been given the opportunities that they deserved under what went before. Earlier this year, he issued his list, which said that the Building Schools for the Future programme in the city that I represent would be unaffected by the changes, and that programme includes two city academies, one of which is in my constituency. However, they are now being told that there will be a cut in that programme of up to 40%. How can he say that the programme is unaffected and that that will not have an impact on opportunity for those children who need it most?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He was a very good Minister, and it is a pity that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench now. I absolutely share his commitment to improving academy provision, not just in the west midlands, but across the country. I can reassure him that all those schools that were recorded as being unaffected will have their building work backed. The money will be there, but we have a duty, to both the taxpayer and those schools, to ensure that when we negotiate with the contractors—with the private sector—we get the best possible value for money. The more money we can save in our negotiations with contractors, the more we can invest in education elsewhere to ensure that the many, many school buildings that are in a state of dilapidation and extreme need receive additional support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman—when he was a Minister, he always sought to secure value for money for taxpayers—will appreciate that that tough negotiation on behalf of the public is exactly what a responsible Government should do.
Hon. Members know that education standards should not just be measured against the past. Countries across the globe are improving relative to the past. We need to measure ourselves against the best in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, the grim truth is that the statistics produced by the OECD show that over the past 10 years, educational standards in this country, relative to other nations, have fallen. We have moved from being fourth in the world for the quality of our science education to 14th, from seventh in the world for the quality of literacy to 17th, and from eighth in the world for the quality of mathematics to 24th. Those are facts that we cannot deny. At the same time as we have fallen behind other countries, the gap between rich and poor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, has grown wider.
In the last year for which we have figures, the number of children who were eligible for free school meals, bearing in mind that every year 600,000 children attend state schools, was 80,000, of whom just 45 made it to Oxbridge—[Interruption.]. It is absolutely the measure. The right hon. Member for Leigh might not like to hear it, but on his and his Government’s, watch the poorest children were denied opportunity. He made it to Cambridge; why should not more children from poor homes make it to Cambridge and Oxford? Why do children from Westminster, St Paul’s, Eton and such bastions of privilege make it to Oxford and Cambridge but not our poorest children in state schools? This Government—the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats united together—are at last investing in social justice, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that figure is a scandal and that at last the investment is going in to secure reform.
Andy Burnham
I am grateful that the Secretary of State acknowledges that I have some knowledge of these matters. He lays all the blame for that figure at the door of the school system in England. Why does he not place any of the blame at the door of Cambridge university and Oxford university? Is he saying that there is no talent in state schools?
Michael Gove
The talent is there, but such children do not get in because they do not have the opportunities that they deserve. The school system has failed them. They do not get in because in the school system children from poorer homes fall behind their wealthier compatriots at every step of the way. At key stage 1, the gap grows wide; at key stage 2 it grows wider still. Children from wealthy homes are twice as likely to get five good GCSEs as those who are eligible for free school meals. That is entrenched inequality in our school system. The Labour party had 13 years; they did not take action, and now they blame others instead of taking responsibility.
Andy Burnham
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State lays all the blame at the door of our schools. When I went to Cambridge in the late 1980s, the proportion had just changed, and the majority had just become children from state schools at 51% with 49% from the independent sector. The figures today are around 55% from state schools, 45% from the independent sector. I am not saying that schools cannot do more to encourage the highest level of aspiration, but is he saying that the Russell group and the most elite universities in our country can do nothing more to open their doors and to operate less elitist admission policies?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman is taking no responsibility for what happened on his watch, for the inequality in the school system, and for taking no steps to deal with the mess that was left to us. We are the party that is saying to Russell group and elite universities that they must do more to ensure that talented children can go to top universities. Unfortunately—this is a fact that he cannot run away from—social mobility went backwards on his watch. This country is less equal as a result of a Labour Government. There were 13 years of shame and 13 years of hurt, and the Labour Government were responsible.
In place of the Labour Government’s failure, we are introducing a wide range of reforms, all of which are based on best international practice and all of which have been proven, in other nations, to drive up standards. We are ensuring that we learn from all the best performing education nations. We are improving teacher recruitment and training. It is our Government, not theirs, who have doubled the number of students entering Teach First, to ensure that we have top graduates going into the most challenging classrooms. It is our Government, not theirs, who have changed the rules on discipline and behaviour to provide teachers with stronger protection and to ensure that we no longer have the absurd situation in which teachers have to wait 24 hours before issuing a detention to an unruly pupil. It is our Government, not theirs, who are changing the national curriculum and introducing an English baccalaureate to ensure that all students, from whatever background, have access to an academic core by the age of 16.
It is our Government, not theirs, who are reforming key stage 2 tests to ensure that all students have accurate information on their progress at primary school, and that we end the damaging “teaching to the test” that has characterised those tests in the past. It is our Government, not theirs, who have given head teachers in all schools the degree of autonomy and independence for which they yearned for 13 years. So it is unsurprising that, in the 37 minutes of the right hon. Member for Leigh’s speech—[Hon. Members: “Forty-seven!”] Forty-seven? Just see how numeracy went down on Labour’s watch. In the 47 minutes of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, there was not a single new idea on how to improve our state education system. He is an IFZ: an ideas-free zone. Those beautiful eyelashes might flutter, but behind them there is a dusty plain where a single idea has yet to take root.
Michael Gove
Talking of beautiful eyelashes, I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna).
Mr Umunna
I find it quite extraordinary to hear the Education Secretary’s comments about increasing the participation of people from deprived backgrounds, in the light of his reforms of higher education financing. Can he tell us how introducing tuition fees of up to £9,000 will increase the participation in higher education of people from deprived communities—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about Oxford and Cambridge, and other universities, and he should answer my question.
Michael Gove
The debate today is about schools, not about higher education. However, I would be delighted to have a debate about higher education. It would be interesting to know who would represent the Opposition in such a debate. Would it be the Leader of the Opposition, who believes in a graduate tax, or the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who denounces such a tax? Would it be the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden)—who is no longer in his place—who backs the Browne reforms, or would it be the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), who opposes them? The truth is that, on higher education, there is a split in the Labour party as wide as the River Jordan between those who are genuinely progressive and back our reforms and those who are regressive and oppose them—[Interruption.] Hon. Members ask who introduced tuition fees. The Labour party did that, and in so doing, broke a manifesto promise—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I must remind hon. Members that this is a debate on schools, and not on higher education. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to open up another debate.
Michael Gove
I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson).
Mr Stewart Jackson
I hesitate to derail my right hon. Friend’s peroration, but related to his point about the badge of shame and ignominy attached to the record of the last Labour Government is the number of children in care and the fact that the educational attainment of the most vulnerable in society actually went backwards under their time in office. Should not those on the Labour Front Bench hang their heads in shame about that?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. His commitment to looked-after children and children in care has been consistent, both before he entered the House and now that he serves with such distinction here. One of the reasons that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is taking such pains to change the rules on, for example, adoption and to work with looked-after children is that the vulnerable and the voiceless need our support. I hope that the efforts that we are all making to ensure that they enjoy a better future will be backed across the House.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
If the right hon. Gentleman is really serious about increasing social mobility, will he explain how the double whammy of getting rid of the child trust funds and the education maintenance allowance will achieve that?
Michael Gove
We are increasing social mobility by reforming our school system. Let me mention one striking thing about the changes we are making. According to the right hon. Member for Leigh, these changes are an ideological experiment, so who is backing these changes? Who are the extremists who support what the Government are doing? Who are the figures with whom we are ashamed to be associated, who are saying that our ideas are right? Well, what about Arne Duncan, Education Secretary in Barack Obama’s Administration? The other week, he said:
“I just have tremendous respect for the educational work and the leadership that I’ve seen coming from the UK and we’re all working on the same issues and have the same challenges.”
He also said that the coalition Government were
“pushing in all the right areas”
on education policy. He said that I am
“working very, very hard, and I love his sense of urgency, I love his willingness to challenge the status quo when things are not working”.
So we are backed by Barack Obama. [Interruption.] It was his Education Secretary, but we all know that he speaks for the President.
Talking of international statesmen—[Interruption.] Not Toby, but Tony—Tony Blair. The former Prime Minister, who knew about winning elections and how to lead the Labour party to victory, wrote:
“In many areas of domestic policy, the Tories will be at their best when they are allowed to get on with it—as with reforms in education.”
We shall come back to some striking things about the former Prime Minister’s words. I remember when the right hon. Member for Leigh was a Blairite—although that was before he was promoted by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), but there we are. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, he was one of the plotters, but we will come back to that later. It is striking that the arguments that the former Prime Minister made at every stage in favour of educational reform are now rejected by the Opposition. In 2005, Tony Blair said:
“In our schools… the system will finally be opened up to real parent power… All schools will be able to have Academy style freedoms… All schools will be able to take on external partners. No one will be able to veto parents starting new schools or new providers coming in, simply on the basis that there are local surplus places. The role of the LEA will change fundamentally. There will be relentless focus on failing schools to turn them round… schools will be accountable not to government at the centre… but to parents, with the creativity and enterprise of the teachers and school leaders set free.”
I agree with those words, but I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Leigh does, as he opposes every single one of the points made in that quote. He opposes extending academy-style freedoms to all schools. He wants to veto parents from starting new schools. He does not want the role of the local authority to change fundamentally, and he does not want the creativity and enterprise of teachers and school leaders set free. Why is that? Why are the real conservatives now sitting on the Opposition Benches?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
What safeguards are there against extremists, including Islamists and creationists, setting up free schools?
Michael Gove
As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have a consistent record of opposing Islamic extremism. One thing we have done is to set up a new due diligence unit within the Department in order to ensure that the threat of extremism—not just from anyone who might wish to promote a free school, but from anyone who wishes to infiltrate our state school system—is dealt with. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in both Surrey and Birmingham there were genuine dangers due to extremist influence in state schools. I take the issue very seriously and I am delighted to work with others such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) in helping to counter it.
That brings me to another key point on which I agree with Tony Blair—no slouch when it came to opposing Islamist extremism. If we automatically assume that any parent who believes it is right to set up new schools is an extremist, we are saying to the overwhelming majority of people in this country who want better state education, “I am sorry; you are outside the mainstream.”
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State refers to deprivation and how to tackle it. He will know that the inheritance of teenage pregnancy is an issue that affects deprivation and the poverty of ambition of many families. If we look at the map of teenage pregnancy in this country, we see that it is also the map of deprivation. I acknowledge that we did not have complete success on this issue, although we had partial success. We cut the numbers. They had risen dramatically under Mrs Thatcher’s era. They fell in ours, but not as much as we would have liked. I think that was partly because we did not learn the lessons from countries such as Holland—where the figure is five times lower than it is in this country—and introduce statutory sex and relationship education. Will the Secretary of State think again about his opposition to that?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent proponent of better sex and relationship education, but I have to tell him that it is a statutory part of the present curriculum. The critical question is how we can improve the quality of guidance and the quality of teaching. The hon. Gentleman is passionate, and in this respect his passion is in a good cause, but I fear that he has got his facts wrong. Sex and relationship education is already compulsory; personal, social and health education, which is a broader issue, is not yet compulsory in the national curriculum. Now that I have cleared up that confusion on the hon. Gentleman’s part, I hope that we can work together to ensure that our sex and relationship education reflects 21st-century values. I have been delighted to work with Liberal Democrat colleagues to achieve just that.
I have quoted politicians who back our reforms, but it is important for us to hear from teachers as well. I mentioned head teachers earlier, but let me run through what some are saying about coalition policies. These are head teachers who have taken advantage of the changes that we have made: changes that the right hon. Member for Leigh said had been introduced in a rush, and were ill-conceived and ideological.
Headmistress Lesley Grace, of Seaton primary school in Cumbria, says that as a result of our changes
“we can be totally focused on our age group and our community… we can target resources to employ specialist staff, such as speech and language therapists or reading intervention specialists.”
The school could not do that before.
At Durand primary school in Stockwell, London, 52% of pupils are eligible for free school meals. What does the head teacher say when he thinks about how to improve outcomes for those poor children? He says:
“Academy status does give us greater freedom to deliver an even more bespoke education, tailoring it to the needs of our specific intake.”
He says that the school is giving more
“time and space in the curriculum back to subjects like sport and music, the importance of which have been lost over recent years.”
What about Patricia Sowter, headmistress of Cuckoo Hall school in Enfield, whom I mentioned earlier? She says that academy status enables her to invest more in
“training, development and non-contact time for senior teachers.”
Jonathan Bishop, headmaster of Broadclyst primary school in Devon, says that academy freedoms give him the opportunity
“to deliver an outstanding environment”
for his students, adding
“I don't understand why anyone would not want to do it.”
As a result of academy status, the headmaster of the Premier academy in Milton Keynes can
“employ two or three more teachers to cut class sizes.”
While we are talking about smaller class sizes, let me cite Paul Gazzard, head teacher of St Buryan school in Penzance, who has been able to bring the average class size in his school down to 18 by introducing academy reforms.
The question for the right hon. Member for Leigh is this: will he reverse these changes? He opposed them, which is fair enough. It is understandable. A new, keen, young Opposition spokesman is entirely entitled to fly an opportunist flag, but now that real schools and real pupils are benefiting, the question for him is this: will he turn the clock back?
I have more confidence in the right hon. Gentleman than in his predecessor. I think he will see that our changes are bringing real improvements, and I do not think he wants to turn the clock back. However, that is the test for Labour Members. Are they ready to embrace reform and to acknowledge that it is now the coalition Government who are delivering improvements in state education, or do they want to go back to where they were in the 1980s? Do they want to go back to being the voice of the conservative teaching establishment? Do they want to be the voice of those individuals in trade unions who are opposed to reform and opposed to change?
We should bear in mind the words of Tony Blair. When he was introducing his reforms, there were Labour Members—although not many—who opposed them. He said:
“Parts of the left will say we are privatising public services and giving too much to the middle class.”
That is broadly the case made by the right hon. Member for Leigh; but Blair continued:
“both criticisms are wrong and simply a version of the old ‘levelling down’ mentality that kept us in Opposition for so long.”
If we are to extend opportunity more widely, we need to ensure that the head teachers whom I have cited, and the others who are anxious to take advantage of these reforms—to invest in improving teacher quality, to invest in better discipline and behaviour, and to invest in higher academic standards—are given the freedom to do so.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has spoken passionately about extending opportunities for the poorest children in our country, but let me tell him something. On Friday I shall be meeting the head teacher of Our Lady and St Chad Catholic sports college in my constituency. She is deeply concerned about what we suspect is the Secretary of State’s intention to withdraw the specific budget for specialist sports schools. That school is in a deprived area of my constituency, and it has both raised educational standards and improved health conditions for young people in the area. Will the Secretary of State reconsider?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a strong case on behalf of her constituents and that head teacher, who I am sure is doing a superb job, and I can assure all head teachers whose schools enjoy specialist status that what we are doing is removing the bureaucracy which had attended specialist status. All schools will now receive the money through the direct schools grant, and as a result they will be able to spend it as they think fit, not as bureaucrats decree.
On the subject of funding, I want to pay particular tribute to my Liberal Democrat coalition partners. They came under attack from the right hon. Member for Leigh, but I think it is only fair to say the following. Before the general election, Liberal Democrat coalition partners made the case for the pupil premium passionately, fluently and effectively. It was a policy I supported, but it had been developed with particular attention to detail by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), and it was first promoted by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). As a result of the case that was made by Liberal Democrat members of the coalition, this Government are now delivering a pupil premium that is worth £2.5 billion in additional spending after four years.
Michael Gove
Just a second. That £2.5 billion of additional money is on top of another £1.1 billion of additional spending to deal with demographic changes, so there is £3.6 billion in additional spending on schools, targeted towards the very poorest—spending that the right hon. Member for Leigh and others consistently opposed, and which they rejected during coalition negotiations. It is spending that has been delivered by a coalition Government—two parties united in pursuit of social justice—after one party had let those children down.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I greatly welcome the fact that children in my constituency who come from disadvantaged backgrounds will be supported in their education. However, I would like an assurance from the Secretary of State that this is extra money, and that it does not involve taking money away from schools in deprived areas.
Michael Gove
I am delighted to be able to give the hon. Lady that assurance, and I can do so because the case for the pupil premium was made so passionately by her parliamentary colleague the right hon. Member for Yeovil, and because it was then delivered thanks to the hard work of the Minister of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Prime Minister. [Interruption.] All of them worked together to ensure that we have £2.5 billion extra.
Michael Gove
Labour Members are upset and annoyed and are heckling because it is this coalition Government who are delivering for those poorest children and they hate that. We can see on their faces their anger and annoyance that it is the coalition parties that are at last delivering on social justice and progressive reforms, and that are improving the school system.
Andy Burnham
It was Labour that gave local authorities funding to raise standards in the poorest areas. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said we had an implicit pupil premium; the Secretary of State might care to read its research.
Let us stop shifting the ground. The commitment the Liberal Democrats said they had was for a pupil premium additional—on top of—a schools budget protected in real terms; that is not just the dedicated schools grant, but the entire schools budget. Have they got that? This is fundamental. Let us have no fine words from the Secretary of State; he must get to the heart of that question. Have the Liberal Democrats got what they told the former Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), they had during those post-election talks? We need to know.
Michael Gove
I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about schools rather than education, but the truth is, yes, the Liberal Democrats have got a fantastic deal—and more to the point, so has the country. There is £3.6 billion extra; £2.5 billion extra spent on schools, and £1.1 billion extra spent on demography, so there is a real-terms increase in education spending, and delivered over four years, whereas the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was going to deliver additional spending only for two years, not four years. More than that, he was not going to deliver, as we have, additional pre-school learning for the poorest two-year-olds. He was not going to deliver, as we have, an extra £150 million to help students from poorer backgrounds to go to universities. He was not going to deliver, as we have, an additional £7 billion over the lifetime of this Government to help the very poorest children. The reason why all Labour Members are so anxious to try to attack this proposition is that they hate the fact that progressive policies are being delivered by a coalition Government.
Michael Gove
I am conscious that many Back Benchers, on both sides of the House, wish to contribute. I am also aware that the Opposition motion asks us all, but particularly the Government, to
“work with families, teachers and communities to deliver improved standards of learning and teaching in all local schools.”
But how? Nothing in what the shadow Secretary of State said today, what he said in his speech to the Association of Directors of Children’s Services or what he has said in any interview that he has given constitutes a new or fresh, radical or reforming idea to improve our education system. What do the Opposition offer? How are they going to work with schools, local authorities and parents to improve education? Are they just going to hold hands and sing “Kum ba ya”? Are they going to close their eyes and wish really hard? Are they going to cross their fingers and hope that Tinkerbell will somehow magic a better education system into place? Why can the Opposition not give us a single solid idea for reforming our schools system? It is because they have abandoned reform and instead prefer the opportunism of opposition.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Now will the Secretary of State answer the question: is it £2.5 billion on top of cash balances or is it £2.5 billion in real terms on top of what schools are now receiving?
Michael Gove
It is £2.5 billion on top of the cash settlement that schools have been given. It is a real-terms increase in schools spending and £3.6 billion overall. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) is probably off to celebrate the good news. The truth is that this spending could not have been delivered by the Opposition, because they were not committed to taking the tough decisions that we have taken in order to invest in schools spending.
Bill Esterson
Is the truth not that the Institute for Fiscal Studies figures clearly show that because of increasing pupil numbers this will amount to a 2.25% cut in real terms—not an increase, but a cut—and that the most disadvantaged areas will lose out as a result of the proposals that the Secretary of State wants to introduce on the pupil premium?
Michael Gove
Absolutely not. Schools spending will rise in real terms over the lifetime of the coalition Government. That was not a promise that the Opposition were able to give; they could promise only to increase spending over two years. As I say, we are also extending 15 hours of pre-school learning to all disadvantaged two-year-olds—the Government of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath were not able to deliver that. We are also giving £150 million to help disadvantaged students from poorer backgrounds to make it to university.
Mr Graham Stuart
The Opposition are complaining about any possible changes to areas of deprivation, but it is not areas that we need to be concerned about—areas of Sheffield that were some of the wealthiest in the country were getting additional money. What we need to do is ensure that money follows the pupil. The gap between children on free school meals and the rest is wider in the East Riding of Yorkshire, including my constituency, than in any other part of the country. We need a pupil premium that follows children wherever they live, so that we have a more just system that does narrow that gap, which sadly widened under the previous Government.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point and we need to narrow the gap. The gap between children who are eligible for free school meals and other children across the country is far too wide. We need to ensure that disadvantaged children receive additional funding, and under the coalition Government they will receive such funding on top of the dedicated schools grant that was not going to be delivered by the Opposition.
Michael Gove
I am conscious that a number of Back Benchers want to contribute, so I shall now draw my remarks gently to a close.
The change in Opposition policy since 2005 has been remarkable. A party that was once committed to education reform is now committed to putting the clock back. It is those on this side of the House who are investing more money in the education of the poorest, who are recruiting more great teachers into our most disadvantaged schools, who are changing the policy on discipline, who are reforming the allocation of funds for children with special educational needs, who have ensured that academies admit children with special educational needs on a level playing field, who have extended the Freedom of Information Act to academies, and who are ensuring that vulnerable children at last receive the opportunities they deserve. It is those on this side of the House who are at last trusting teachers and head teachers to do what they have yearned to do for 13 years—to take control of the education system and to transform it in the interests of all our children. For those reasons, I invite the House to reject the Opposition motion.
Mr Speaker
Order. A large number of Members want to take part in the debate and, as usual, time is our enemy. I have therefore decided to reduce the length of Back-Bench speeches from seven minutes to a maximum of six minutes from now on.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the Opposition motion. The Secretary of State evaded interventions from me and from several others on the Labour Benches after he said that we were “angry” that the coalition Government were introducing a pupil premium. May I inform him that the Labour Government had a pupil premium? I do not know if it was as well worked through as it should have been; it was an early policy introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that was absorbed and no longer ring-fenced when Charles Clarke became Secretary of State. There was a pupil premium, but I would challenge the Secretary of State. He knows that the Opposition want more resources to follow people from deprived backgrounds. If he is honest with the House and in his intellectual engagement with the debate, he also knows that the most difficult thing is to find a method of ensuring that the money tracks the right people.
The Secretary of State will find it difficult, as we did with Sure Start children’s centres. We started, as he knows, with 500 in the 500 most deprived communities, but we then discovered that that left out most of the deprived children in our country so we moved the number up to 3,500. One of my concerns—and a concern of Members on both sides of the House when they talk frankly in private—is that we might see a drastic cut in the number of children’s centres, based on the idea of going back to the original intention of having 500, which would exclude most children from deprived backgrounds. That has a parallel in the pupil premium. The Opposition are arguing that the way in which the Government propose to introduce the premium means that it will fail to reach the children who are most deprived, because it is not well crafted. We understand that it is difficult for any Government to ensure that such methods work.
The one thing in the Opposition motion that I found difficult to swallow was the mention of ideology. I honestly fail to see what the Government’s ideology is. I do not see a consistent theme running through their education policy. There are bits and bobs of ideas, some of them refreshing and interesting, but when it comes to others I, and other people who have been in education for a long time, do not understand where they are coming from or where they are leading us.
As Chair of the Select Committee for nearly 10 years, I found it refreshing when a Minister came before the Committee and said that the reason for introducing a policy was that it was evidence-based. One of the most refreshing things about Tony Blair in his 1995 conference speech, in his Ruskin speech in 1996 and when he put that speech into operation in 1997, was that he was both pragmatic and open to evidence-based policy. We saw that across a raft of policies, but when the Committee looked at how policies evolved, we found that when Ministers left the evidence base they got into trouble.
The present Government seem to be basing their whole education policy on something called the big society. Many people have talked to me about what the big society means. It is very difficult to find out. What is the big society? Is it localism? It is a funny sort of localism that jumps over and disregards locally elected education authorities. That is a very different kind of localism.
How do we know that people who want free schools represent the community? We have already heard evidence that there have been some strange bids. I am not sure that the answers we heard today about faith schools were entirely convincing.
Graham Evans
Before the general election, Labour Members supported co-operative schools. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the difference between the co-operative schools project and the Government’s free schools project?
Mr Sheerman
I was, and am, a great supporter of co-operative partnership in academies. I was a great supporter of academies, but I understood exactly what the argument for academies was under the previous Government. Under Tony Blair, it was to take first 200, and then a further 400, schools where everything else had been tried; they were usually in areas of great deprivation and everything that had been done to try to raise standards had failed. We introduced academies where we thought it was worth trying something because nothing else had worked, but now the academy model has been inverted. It is no longer about where schools are failing and real help is necessary for kids, who get only one chance for education—where we need to act quickly because we cannot wait for a laggardly local authority to get its act together. We now have a system in which any school can become an academy, and I am not sure what its theme, goal or arrival point is.
The big society does not seem to be a substitute for evidence-based policy, or to involve a clear notion of where we are going with education policy. I shall illustrate that with just one point. My concerns are not only about Sure Start and early years, but also about the fact that there is now seemingly an end to the choice that was opening up. There was real choice in our schools—the apprentice route, the skills route through the diploma, or the academic route. That opening up, with the possibility to cross over, was very refreshing, but it seems to have been killed by the new Government.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, although I must express some disappointment with the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State. It lacked a contribution on how to improve our school system. There were improvements in our education system under the Labour Government; there is no question about that. In general, we have a motivated and high-calibre teaching work force, although of course they too could do with further improvement. There was nothing constructive in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech.
When a party is thrown out after 13 years in government, there is a real opportunity to think again. One of the first things Labour Members should do is put their hands up on some of the issues. For Labour to have presided for 13 years over a widening of the gap between the educational outcomes for rich and poor, and a widening of the gap in the overall educational performance of the UK against its key competitors, is not something about which to be complacent or self-satisfied. Collectively, as a political class—although I was on the Opposition Benches—we failed to turn the vast increase in expenditure on education under the previous Government, and the political will that existed then, into sufficient progress for the poorest in our society, which one would have hoped would be delivered by Labour, and for the country overall.
Wrestling with the issues of bringing about improvement in our education system is what we should all be involved in, rather than trying to score points, especially as it is likely that the coalition Government and this Parliament will run for some years. Every party, not least the Opposition, should be dealing with the real issues, and should have a platform for improvement.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the good will of the Opposition and their desire to reduce inequality in education. Is it not true, however, that we do not yet know how successful our expenditure on reducing such inequality might be because, for example, children who started in a Sure Start centre when those first opened in my constituency are not yet 16, so we do not know what choices they will make?
Mr Stuart
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Many of those initiatives, such as Sure Start, are being supported by this Government. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has been an ardent champion of early intervention and has helped Members in all parts of the House to recognise the need to intervene early in order to make sure that children arrive ready for school, and that they have a decent vocabulary so that they can engage with learning. There is merit in what the hon. Lady says, but even the most ardent supporter of the Labour Government would hardly suggest that the improvements that were wished for have genuinely been delivered.
I am pleased to follow my predecessor, the highly distinguished former Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who said that he could not see an ideological base. I hope it is a practical evidence-based approach by the Government. It is clear that they believe that giving greater trust, responsibility and control to front-line professionals is more likely to lead to an improvement in standards than central prescription, however well-meaning. It is as obvious to me as the River Jordan that that is the key insight of this Government.
We must ensure that that process is well thought through, that we support front-line professionals, that capability is developed where it does not currently exist, and that it is put in place in time to match any withdrawal of support from local authorities or others who may previously have delivered it.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the Government’s wish to push more resources towards the front line, but in his opening remarks the Secretary of State talked about some of the most intractable areas of poverty and deprivation in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that directing resources to the front line and reconfiguring budgets alone will solve those problems, or that bigger, bolder schemes such as education maintenance allowances are required to tackle the deep-rooted poverty that causes that deprivation?
Mr Stuart
That, too, is a fair intervention. This is not the Government’s sole policy area. They are also considering doubling the size of Teach First over the next three years, and have been in negotiation with Teach First about that. The essence of improving education standards is higher-calibre, better supported, better motivated, better led teachers in the classroom. That is what it is all about. That is the prism through which we should look at every decision that we make—which is why I welcome the Teach First approach.
It is not necessarily contradictory, though I can see that it may look hypocritical, to talk about reducing central prescription on what teachers may have, on the one hand, and on the other, raising the bar to those whom the state supports to go into teacher training so that the people coming in are better qualified.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) is right to ask those questions. Tools alone will not deliver. What is needed, and what we have heard from head teachers and from the profession over the years, is that too much prescription, too much teaching to the test, too much narrowing of the curriculum—in other words, too much of what want on under the previous Government—took away the joie de vivre and the empowerment of front-line professionals. If we can bring that back, plus Teach First, put the tools in place, encourage ever better school leadership and school governance, which I hope the Select Committee will examine over time, we can move our education system on to a higher plane, and deliver what Members in all parts of the House want.
Knockabout—trying to suggest that Tories eat babies, or whatever those on the Opposition Front Bench seem to suggest—is not helpful. I believe that everyone in this House, regardless of party, came into politics because they would like to create a more just and fair society. This is not only about social justice. The forces of globalisation, which we cannot stop, and the suggestion in the Leitch report that there will be fewer and fewer jobs for people who do not have skills, make it an absolute economic necessity that we improve the skills of our young people. In response to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), the truth is that we failed to make the progress that we should have done, and this Government feel that autonomy, plus their other measures, represent a better way to achieve that.
I want to make some brief remarks about Building Schools for the Future. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who is chatting at the moment, knows full well that there is not the evidence to show that capital investment in schools leads to educational transformation. There is a link, but it is pretty small. Obviously, we all regret the fact that we cannot have brand-new schools where schools are not in an ideal state, but under BSF the allocation of money was out of proportion to the benefit given. Under this Government, more money will be spent on capital in schools in this Parliament than in the first two Parliaments of the Labour Government. Let us keep this in perspective. We need to recognise that nobody wants children to be in a school that is not in a good condition, but equally there is no evidence to show that the building itself, however inspiring the children may initially say it is when it opens, leads to the educational transformation that is at the real heart of improving outcomes, particularly for the poorest.
I should like to touch on the education maintenance allowance, which many other Members have mentioned. In the case of the EMA, unlike BSF, there is material evidence to show that it has helped young people from certain backgrounds to stay in education. I hope that Ministers will take that evidence very seriously and ensure that whatever they put in place does not artificially stifle that opportunity for people.
On the move from the current position to autonomy, we need to consider issues such as school sports trusts. I hope that Ministers, while generally believing in giving autonomy to schools and passing it down, will be careful to ensure that transitional arrangements, and sometimes funding, are in place so that things of value are not unnecessarily lost before they grow again from the grass roots.
Most of all, what we must have for this country is aspiration—aspiration to raise standards overall, and aspiration in believing that we can do so much better. So far, the shadow Secretary of State has been far more of an expert on health than on education, but I hope that he can start to express that Blairite aspiration of looking upwards, improving and challenging all the time, rather than simply defending the status quo, which is indefensible as it stands.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). I welcome the measured tone of his remarks, particularly his final comments on the education maintenance allowance and school sports partnerships.
It is incumbent on Members in all parts of the House, but particularly Labour Members, to respond to the Secretary of State’s challenge on continued inequality in education. It is clearly a scar on our society and our economy that someone’s social background is still such a key determinant of how well they will do later on in life. However, I would appreciate it if he would acknowledge the serious efforts that Labour in power made to enact reforms that would make a difference to the situation, not least the academies programme. The Labour version of the academies programme was very much about dealing with deprivation and struggling and failing schools in some of the poorest communities. The record in those academies since they were established over the past decade has been overwhelmingly positive and successful.
The education maintenance allowance also provides an excellent example of a Labour programme that has made a real difference, with more young people from poorer backgrounds achieving higher qualifications as a result of it and, crucially, more young people from those backgrounds staying on into higher education than happened previously. There is no question of Labour Members abandoning reform, and we now have an opportunity to consider the reforms that best take forward our principles in seeking a more equal society in future.
I want to address a couple of the specifics in the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Labour’s record on capital investment is an overwhelmingly positive one. It is a matter of concern that while the average cut in capital investment by Government Departments over the next period in the comprehensive spending review is 28%, the average cut for schools is more than double that, at 60%. That has real implications in constituencies such as mine. Schools that were going to benefit from wave 6 of Building Schools for the Future were let down in the summer and are still waiting to see what will happen in future. Liverpool city council has taken the sensible approach of trying to devise a plan B, and I urge the Secretary of State and his officials to work closely with Liverpool so that we can have such a plan. In the summer he gave an undertaking that he or one of his Ministers would come to Liverpool, and I repeat the invitation so that we can work together to secure the very best capital support for schools in my constituency and across the rest of Liverpool.
The principle behind the pupil premium is good. There is a genuine problem, which the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned, with pockets of deprivation in otherwise affluent areas. Sometimes, local government fails to redistribute funds to ensure that the affected schools get the money that they deserve. Our concern, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State set out, is whether the pupil premium is to be additional money, and particularly whether schools in constituencies such as mine will directly lose out as a consequence of its introduction. Liverpool has the highest level of deprivation in England, and we need to ensure that our funding is properly protected so that we can build on the remarkable improvement in standards in Liverpool’s schools since 1997.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is discussing the pupil premium eloquently. Would he like to comment on a situation in my constituency? During the general election campaign the Liberal Democrat candidate was championing the pupil premium, at the same time as the Liberal Democrat council was closing schools in the most deprived areas.
Stephen Twigg
It is obviously shocking and unprecedented to hear an example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one place and doing the opposite elsewhere. I am certainly very concerned by the example that my hon. Friend gives.
My concern is that there will be a triple blow for the poorest communities, including the one that I now represent: the loss of capital investment through Building Schools for the Future, potential revenue cuts because of the creation of the pupil premium, and the abolition of the EMA.
I wish to address two other specific matters in my remaining time. The first is the impact of the Government’s decisions on sports, to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referred. There has been fantastic work by the Youth Sport Trust and school sports partnerships in the recent period. Moving away from specialist sports colleges is a fundamental error. It is wrong for the academic chances of the kids who go to those schools, bad for participation in sport and physical education and bad for health and the campaign against obesity.
In my constituency is the excellent Cardinal Heenan school, which is a specialist sports college. My right hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that it works closely with Everton football club to promote sport and PE not just in that school but in local primary schools. We need to learn from the positive examples of such schools. I recognise that removing ring-fencing can often be popular with schools in principle, but there is always a fear that if we move away from a national strategy and a targeted approach completely, the original objective of that strategy will be lost and we might see a reduction in participation in sport and PE. That would come at a time when, for health reasons, we need more participation, not less.
My final point is about citizenship education. As a Minister, I was proud to launch that as part of the core national curriculum. I know that the Government are reconsidering the national curriculum, and I should like to make a plea for citizenship to remain a core part of it. Members of all parties can unite in sharing concern about the decline in active involvement in communities and political literacy among young people.
The evidence suggests that the impact of citizenship education has been patchy, without any doubt, but Ofsted has shown that the best citizenship lessons are those taught by teachers with a specialist subject knowledge. My fear is that if citizenship education ceases to be part of the core national curriculum, fewer teachers will train in it and there will be a decline in its quality in our schools. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will be able to provide some reassurance that this Government, like the previous one, see citizenship education as a very important part of the curriculum.
All parties can agree that education is important for social justice and for our economic future. There is a real fear that the Government’s policies could further widen the gap between the deprived and less deprived parts of the country through cuts in capital investment, the loss of the EMA and the impact of the pupil premium. I urge them to think again in those key policy areas.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. Education is vital not only to the future of our children and young people, but to the future of the UK as a whole. Our economy depends on nurturing the best and brightest talents, and we should ensure that each and every child, no matter their background or social situation, has access to the very best education that we can provide.
I should like to declare my interest in this debate. I am chairman of governors of Vaynor first school, which is one of the largest first schools in the country with 408 pupils. The Secretary of State may remember visiting Vaynor with me a couple of years ago. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from its head teacher. She wrote:
“I could kiss Michael Gove! He has cancelled Financial Management Standards in Schools.”
Although it would not be proper for me to echo both sentiments in that statement, I firmly support the Government’s move to cancel needless micromanagement. As chairman of governors, I fully understand the issues surrounding fairer funding for our schools. The Government’s long-term plans for a simpler funding system are welcome. There is a definite need to tailor funding for schools in each area, not base funding allocation on a complicated and arbitrary system that overlooks local needs.
There is also a large disparity between the funding allocated to similar schools in different areas of the country. It has not escaped my notice that the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition receives per pupil funding of £4,083; the constituency of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) receives per pupil funding of £4,265; and even higher is the guaranteed per pupil funding of £4,317 for the constituency of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). Redditch, on the other hand, receives only £3,864. The schools of those right hon. Gentlemen who put forward today’s motion receive on average almost £300 more than schools in my Redditch constituency.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of the schools of Worcestershire. May I add one more statistic to her figures? There is a £760 per pupil gap in funding between pupils in Worcestershire and the neighbouring authority of Birmingham. Her constituency in Redditch and mine in Worcester include some of the most deprived wards in the country. Both were represented by Labour Members in this House for 13 years, and people in those communities were on a 13-year promise of fairer funding. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming this Government’s intention to review the funding formula? If Opposition Members turn their backs on funding reform, they will be turning their backs on some of the neediest communities in Worcestershire.
Karen Lumley
I agree with my hon. Friend. I urge the Government to ensure that funding is fair and that schools across the country have equal access to the piggy bank. I also welcome the Government’s plans for the pupil premium and the £2.5 billion that has been found in these difficult economic times to support educational development of the most disadvantaged pupils. That shows a real commitment by this Government to reduce the attainment gap and ensure that each and every school pupil reaches their potential. However, we must ensure that the pupil premium goes to those who are most in need, and I urge the Government not to overlook the pockets of deprivation that exist in Redditch and Worcester, the constituency of my hon. Friend. Will the Government clarify how the pupil premium will reach those pockets of deprivation?
Finally, I should like to say a few words about standards in schools. I should like to see standards raised in Redditch over the course of this Parliament. I firmly believe that the Government should focus on school standards—not just in a few schools but in all our schools. We need to ensure that teachers are free from the increasing bureaucracy and incessant form filling so that they can concentrate on teaching our children.
When I meet teachers and head teachers, one of the first things that they mention is the endless amounts of paperwork that they have to deal with. We need to move away, and stay away, from the bureaucratic procedures imposed on our school system and make sure that it is replaced by teachers spending more time with pupils. I received another e-mail yesterday, from another head teacher in my constituency, who wrote:
“Just to say I applaud the Government for abolishing this bureaucratic burden on schools. It is good to finally have a Government that listens”.
On that note, I will finish my contribution. We in Redditch are trying hard to improve our schools and get the very best education for our children. I applaud the Government’s proposals and hope that all hon. Members will make their schools and our nation’s children their top priority.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Select Committee, and his comments about the importance of investment in improving attainment and standards, but it is also important to recognise that the previous Labour Government not only put in the money but achieved results. I did not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what happened. GCSE results and others improved, and there was a big increase in further and higher education results.
My family was fortunate enough to have access to Sure Start when a centre opened where we lived. It benefited not just my family but the other families who used it. They told me in great detail the difference that it had made to the younger children, when compared with older children who had not had such an opportunity in a Sure Start centre or in any other pioneering family centres that preceded it. The difference can be seen many years later in the attitudes, behaviour and achievement of the younger children, who are now teenagers, compared with their slightly older brothers and sisters, who had no such support in the early years. I know from that evidence the importance of Sure State to children who live in deprived areas, which explains people’s concerns about Sure Start’s future.
The Secretary of State did not answer the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made about concerns regarding the future of Sure Start, but perhaps he will do so in his closing remarks. I know from my experience and that of many others who have benefited that, of all the previous Government’s achievements, the improvement in the quality of lives and the outcomes for children and families, just through Sure Start, is beyond measure.
The education maintenance allowance benefited many young people who stayed in education. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats suggested in their manifesto that they understood that. They promised to support the EMA, as did the Conservatives, because they saw the improvement in staying-on rates, and the predicted decline by some organisations in staying on of 10% or 12% is worrying. In Sefton, 80% of young people receive EMA, and from talking to them I know the number who say that they will not bother going to college any more without the £30 or £50 a week is frightening. I hope the Government reconsider the limits they are placing on support to young people.
I asked the Secretary of State about the pupil premium, about which the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Library make similar points. The rise in the numbers of children going to school means that, despite the pupil premium and the increase in the overall money for schools, the real-terms effect is a cut for 87% of secondary schools and 60% of primary schools. That cannot be what the Secretary of State intended, and the impact on areas of deprivation, to which the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) referred, is worrying.
I accept that we need to look after people in pockets of deprivation in the more affluent areas, but it is important to ensure that people in the larger areas of deprivation, such as those in Merseyside and our other large cities, are protected. Unless we do that, the outcomes and many other aspects of life for children who most need our help will decline significantly.
Graham Evans
My constituency is on the periphery of Merseyside and Cheshire. I want to address the needs of those in pockets of social deprivation, which you have just brushed aside. Those numbers add up. I appreciate, and have a lot of sympathy with, the issues that you have in Merseyside—indeed, I support your case—but you cannot ignore those numbers because when you put them into the comprehensive—
Mr Speaker
Order. First, the hon. Gentleman should not, by now, be using the word “you”. Secondly, interventions should be brief, not mini-speeches. Other Members are waiting to contribute to the debate.
Bill Esterson
I shall close by addressing that point. I did say it is important that we look after those in pockets of deprivation, but it is crucial issue that we do not do so at the expense of much larger areas where, historically, we have had to invest money to support people because of the extreme deprivation.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
Like others, I declare an interest. I was, until 2000, a teacher, having taught in three state comprehensive schools, two of which were classed as social priority. I was a member of the Inner London education authority, the mention of which calls to mind not only political battles of the past but, perhaps, the importance of those battles in changing education structures and of what that can do to raise standards.
I want to cover three points: spending, teaching in deprived areas and ideology. Although the Labour party does not like it, the sad truth is, as the Secretary of State underlined, that for the next couple of years everything that we do must be seen in the context of the financial mess we have been left with—not only the huge budget deficit and the record national debt, but the fact that Labour went into the last election with blank cheques, of which, for me, Building Schools for the Future was the last. Those are Labour’s legacies, and, although today we have been told that we are making cuts, they were phantom legacies with no money to back them up. I congratulate the Secretary of State on what he achieved in the comprehensive spending review—the increase of £3.6 billion over the next four years and the pupil premium, which other Members have mentioned.
On Building Schools for the Future, we accept that in certain areas there is obviously worry and panic, but the Labour party’s suggestion that the capital programme has entirely disappeared and there will be no repairs to schools and no new schools built is a fallacy. In Fleetwood, which has an extremely good Conservative county council that looks after its money, seven primary schools in some of the most deprived areas in my constituency will have been rebuilt and refurbished by the end of this financial year. That work is still going on, whatever Labour claims.
For me, the learning environment is not just about teaching. It is more than bricks and mortar and, these days, steel and glass. We need quality teaching, good leadership from heads and legislation that allows professionals the freedom to innovate and get on with what they do best.
I remember starting out as a young teacher—we were all young once—in the 1970s when there was another “building schools for the future” programme under a Prime Minister called Jim Callaghan. My first teaching post was in Tottenham, a deprived area then and now, which is perhaps a comment on a series of Governments in between. One could not imagine this today, but we were offered a purpose-built comprehensive for 11 to 18-year-olds, with eight-form entry, on a brand-new site behind Spurs football club. Northumberland Park school, as it was called, was designed by the latest 1970s architects—hon. Members can imagine the result—and had a theatre and a swimming pool. We moved into the school with its first first-years—we had first-years in those days; I think they are called year 7s now—and a bunch of new, enthusiastic and excited teachers. That is where I learned my trade as a history teacher, and I have three anecdotes about my experience.
First, 10 years down the line, that school was in serious trouble, so the building was not the problem. Secondly, I was asked, as a history teacher, to choose the European A-level module, and I chose France and Louis XIV because that is what I knew, it was my specialism, and I could bring my best talents to bear on it. However, there was stiff opposition from the so-called education advisers. This is when I tuned into politics, because that opposition was all about questioning the ability of children in Tottenham, whatever their background, to achieve what other schoolchildren could achieve. I was sorry to hear the shadow Secretary of State’s comment about teaching Latin in Acton. Why should every child not get the best that other schools—even independent schools—provide? I can tell him that the students who studied Louis XIV have ended up in good jobs because they were well taught, not just by me, but by others.
My third anecdote is about social deprivation and poor schools. In that same school, I wanted to put on extra classes when we first had a sixth form, and I did so, for children going for their pre-university application. They were the first from that school to do so, but I was told by the local National Union of Teachers activist that I should perhaps not put on extra classes. Why? Because the school might expect other staff to do the same. I was naive enough to believe that getting a job in a socially deprived area and school involved going the extra mile. Through his reforms, the Secretary of State is attempting to allow teachers who are perhaps a bit younger than I am now to go that extra mile and to achieve for every single child.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who drew on his experience at the chalk face to make his points. I agree with him that every child ought to have the best.
I have been privileged to spend my life in education, working with the most fantastic young people in schools and colleges as well as with wonderful fellow professionals. Professionals have not always got it right, nor have politicians. However, when the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that his priorities were “education, education, education” he at least put his money where his mouth was. We saw investment in education at all levels—from Sure Start to higher education—the like of which I had not seen in my lifetime.
That is why the Secretary of State was right to begin his speech by celebrating successful school leaders who prospered under the previous Government. That does not mean the previous Government got everything right, because they could have done some things better, but, sadly, this Government, rather than learning from and building on the success of their predecessor, are doing what politicians too often do: gambling on organisational change. They are starting again with structures, but that is a distraction from the core issues of quality and teaching and learning, and the capacity and quality of leadership in schools and colleges, which the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) rightly emphasised.
Nationally, schools with the highest number of children who receive free school meals have seen the biggest rise in educational attainment. There has been phenomenal investment in information technology and other modern equipment in our schools, and the role of support staff has been transformed so that the focus is more effectively on the needs of our young people. Teachers are now specialised in teaching and learning, and the outcomes that they have achieved at all levels of our education system have improved year on year. Exciting and innovative things are happening in our comprehensive classrooms, yet, at the very moment when there is a momentum towards greater success, what do this new Government do? With no electoral mandate, they decide to turn everything upside down and gamble with our children’s future.
We need look no further than the Government’s approach to EMA to see how they have strayed from their mandate and gambled with our young people’s futures. Over the past few years, EMAs have been a spur to widen achievement and raise aspiration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) quite rightly quoted the Secretary of State when, putting our right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) in his place, he said, “I have never said we are scrapping EMAs. We won’t.” It was pleasing to see that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) said as recently as June:
“The Government are committed to retaining the educational maintenance allowance”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 307W.]
Sadly, we now know that not only is a pledge not a pledge, but a commitment is nothing more than a throwaway line.
Research conducted by CfBT—the Centre for British Teachers—gives robust evidence that EMAs have increased participation and achievement among 16 and 17-year-olds and contributed to improved motivation and performance. As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness recognised, when effectively focused on the target groups, EMAs are restricted to low-income households and disproportionately taken up by those with low achievement at school, those from ethnic minorities and those from single-parent families. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that attainment at GCSE and A-level by recipients of EMAs has risen by 5 to 7 percentage points since their introduction.
I know all that from my own experience as the principal of a sixth-form college. Indeed, only this week the principal of North Lindsey college in my constituency wrote to me expressing alarm at the impact of the Government’s plans to scrap EMAs on young people’s aspirations. He urged me to raise the matter in Parliament and to argue the case for retaining EMAs, so that is what I am doing this evening. I am appalled by the way in which the Government have abandoned EMAs, breaking the promises that they made to young people as recently as June, as well as before the election. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh pointed out, this Government are taking a reckless gamble with our children’s futures.
Sure Start is being reduced and diminished. The pupil premium appears to mean no more than raiding money from other pots and distributing it in a different way—a way that may turn out to be more unfair. That is why a Liberal Democrat colleague—the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward)—left the Chamber so peremptorily earlier on. He was not satisfied with the answer that the Secretary of State gave to his quite proper question. There will be a real-terms cut per pupil in the schools budget. BSF is a shambles, with schools, communities and students being let down. Support for school sport is being dismantled, thereby betraying our commitment to an Olympic legacy. EMAs are being cancelled and tuition fees trebled. So much for aspiration.
This is a casino Government, gambling with the economy, gambling with our nation’s health service and gambling with our children’s future. It is a gamble that is uncosted, unhelpful and unnecessary. I urge all hon. Members to support the motion before the House this evening.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
The Opposition’s motion today accuses the Government of
“pursuing a reform agenda in education that represents an ideological gamble with successful services”,
but Labour needs to acknowledge all its past, if it is to be taken seriously on education in future.
In my constituency, after 13 years of a Labour Government and a Labour council, and with two Labour MPs between 1997 and 2005, the latest local figures available show that nearly 40% of pupils fail to achieve the basic standard of five good GCSEs, including maths and English. The national figures show that nearly half of all pupils failed to meet that basic standard last year. I am therefore not sure how those on the Labour Front Bench can claim any success, especially when so many thousands of young people are leaving compulsory education without achieving even the most basic of standards. Nor can they claim that the issue is expenditure. In real terms, public expenditure on education increased by £35 billion over Labour’s 13-year period in office, which is an increase of some 72%, although the increase in my constituency was only 50%. Essentially, 50% of children are failing to reach the basic standard, and that is as good as it got in 13 years of a Labour Government. The minor improvements that took place in later years—the introduction of academies, and things like that—were unfortunately far too little and far too late, leaving many children failing in our schools.
Although there are still too many bad teachers in our schools, a large majority are committed and doing a wonderful job in very difficult circumstances. As with so many other parts of the public sector, teachers have been tied up with bureaucracy, and constrained by an over-supply of rules and an under-supply of common sense. I see that week in, week out in schools in my constituency, and I therefore welcome the fact that my Government are introducing truly radical reforms to increase innovation and diversity of approach in our schools. After years of failure by a Labour-run council, I welcome the fact that the Government’s academy policy is handing powers to the people who are best placed to understand the needs of education in their local areas: teachers, head teachers and governors.
In my constituency, there has been a stampede to academy status. Highdown school has already announced its intention to gain such status, and Reading boys school and Kendrick girls school, both grammar schools, will follow shortly. I am sure that others, such as Reading girls school, will take advantage of today’s announcement by my right hon. Friend that any school may now apply for academy status if it teams up with a stronger school that will help to drive improvement.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
In addition to welcoming the success of the academies in my hon. Friend’s constituency, does he also welcome, as I do, the Secretary of State’s recent decision to allow the National Education Trust, the Centre for British Teachers and the Friends of All Saints school to move forward to the next stage of setting up a free school in my constituency with the aim of opening a 120-pupil school in September next year? That local school is backed by local people and the whole of the local community.
Mr Wilson
Of course I welcome that. My hon. Friend has done a great deal to help that process.
I want to make one further remark about my two excellent grammar schools, and I say this gently. I have had conversations with head teachers to the same end. Their catchment areas need to be looked at carefully. Kendrick school in particular is recruiting pupils from far and wide, and is becoming too remote from the local community that it serves. I would like my local grammar schools to re-engage with the task of aiding social mobility for clever, poorer local Reading children rather than being regional schools. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that those schools can expand their numbers to recruit more local Reading children as that may help the situation.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that under the last Government, grammar schools were, unfairly, not allowed to expand their numbers. It is clear that people in my constituency are voting with their feet, and schools are taking advantage of academy status and all the freedom that that brings, instead of staying with the failed system of central planning of the shadow Secretary of State’s Government.
I hope that very soon there will be another massive step forward for education in my constituency with the announcement of a brand new school. I have been particularly taken with the success of city technology colleges and university technical colleges to support education for 14 to 19-year-olds. They would add real diversity and choice for parents in my constituency.
Before it was popular and before it was Conservative party policy, I often wrote about and campaigned for a pupil premium. It is gratifying that the Government are implementing such an important and radical policy, which could see some schools with a particularly high concentration of poor pupils receive as much as £1 million in additional funding to deal with the particular disadvantages associated with poorer pupils. That could make an enormous difference, and help to close the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils, although I accept that on its own it will not be enough.
The Opposition should recognise that the coalition Government are taking on the most successful policies of the last Government, such as the Teach First scheme to bring outstanding graduates into teaching. But they must also face up to the reality that 13 years of a Labour Government and local authority-run education services have left a legacy where, despite massive investment, almost half of pupils fail to make the best or even the most basic grade at school. We owe it to our children to try radical new approaches that have had great success both here and in other countries. It is time to break the cycle of under-achievement.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I realise that time is short, so I have cut down enormously on what I was going to say. I shall stick to the main points. I have been privileged to spend most of my career in education. I know how schools operate, unlike most of those on the Government Front Bench, and I am therefore in the privileged position of being able to comment on the Government’s proposals and on how they are likely to impact on schools and on outcomes for children.
Given my background, I will always approach education reforms not from an ideological standpoint but from the standpoint of whether they will improve schools and outcomes for children, especially poor and vulnerable children, and those with additional difficulties, in constituencies such as mine. The question for me is whether the Government’s reforms will continue the many different improvements that we have seen, or whether they will act as an anchor on talent and aptitude.
I find it inconceivable that any Government could consider allowing just about anyone to open a free school in any type of building, without outdoor play areas, recreational space, or qualified teachers. I am sure the Secretary of State will be aware of the recent Institute of Education report, which clearly demonstrates that the more time a child spends with a support assistant, as opposed to a teacher, the less progress that child will make. It is the strength of the pedagogical environment, the specialist knowledge of the subject and the confidence and quality of the teaching experience that deliver progress. That can only come from a qualified teacher working in a qualified environment.
Pat Glass
I am sorry, but we have very little time.
The Government are proposing a relaxation of the accountability framework in schools, so that academies and schools judged to be outstanding will be inspected only every seven years. I have to ask whether that is going to improve outcomes for schools. I have many criticisms of Ofsted, but I do not criticise its relentless pursuit of an upward trajectory in school improvement. We are all swiftest when we are chased, and that applies as much to head teachers, teachers and schools as to anything or anyone else.
The Government are seeking to abolish independent appeals panels for exclusions. I understand from my discussions with schools that that is not what they want. Head teachers and chairs of governing bodies are telling me that, while it can be very uncomfortable to appear before those independent panels, they provide valuable checks and balances in the system. The heads and chairs are concerned that, without them, they could find themselves defending their actions in court. That would not be good for schools.
The Government are also proposing a national funding formula that is distributed from central Government. However, I am more concerned with what that resource will drive into schools than with where it comes from or who delivers it. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have repeatedly said that they will protect schools funding, but when asked direct questions, they have given very few direct answers. I was pleased to hear the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) advise the Education Committee this morning that schools budgets would grow by subsuming the standards fund and the educational needs grant into the baseline, and that they would be increased by the pupil premium. If that is true, it is welcome. However, the Secretary of State needs to know that I will be checking out the position with schools in my constituency when they get their budgets in December, and if those schools, which educate some of the most deprived children in the country, have less money next year than they have this year, I will be his worst nightmare.
The Secretary of State is an English graduate, and he is fond of coming to the House and lecturing us on the teaching of history. I want to give him a lesson from my end of the curriculum. Unlike politics and philosophy, maths is an absolute science. I shall start with an easy equation. If schools in the poorest communities receive less funding next year than they did this year, and if we add that to more unemployment and poverty as a result of Government cuts, that will equal poorer standards and outcomes, not better ones.
I have looked at the reforms very carefully, and if they are going to produce better outcomes for schools, I will welcome them. However, it is my considered view that they will lead to improved outcomes for some children but poorer outcomes for most. The strapline of this Government will be less “Every child matters” and more “Actually, some children don’t matter very much at all”. That would be a tragedy for the majority of children and schools in this country. The Government appear to be following an ideological experiment with other people’s children, and it is the poorest and the most vulnerable who will lose out most.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The next speaker will be Damian Hinds. I ask him to sit down at 6.40 pm.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate that we are running on a somewhat reduced timetable, but I want to spend a little time metaphorically to reach across the Floor, if I may, and express some sympathy for the fact that Labour was the party that Opposition Members joined. [Interruption.] Most Labour Members may not have been on the Front-Bench team or even in this House during the previous Labour Government, but this is the party they joined and they looked to it to be progressive and ambitious for every child in this country. I am sure they still do, but when they look back on the 13 years of Labour Government, they will see our decline in the international league tables and a widening gap on social mobility, not to mention the 900,000 young people not in education, employment or training. They must be disappointed. The real disappointment, however, is that when faced with a bold and truly ambitious programme such as the one put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, those on the Labour Front Bench have nothing positive to say.
Damian Hinds
I would love to give way, but given the tight timetable, I am strongly advised not to—I apologise.
Far from being the ideological gamble suggested by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) in the Opposition motion, I believe that our programme of change is measured, responsible and genuinely based on evidence. One refreshing aspect of the new Government is that whenever discussion of education policy arises, it always starts with the international evidence and considers where in the world something is done best—whether it be in Norway, Sweden, parts of the United States, or Singapore. Further confirmation of the coalition Government’s evidence-based approach is that they have not proceeded in an ideological way, as they have continued a number of programmes put forward by the previous Government. They are even continuing with some policy elements that have not yet started or are only just beginning, such as increasing the participation age to 18 or the extension of free entitlement in early years. That, if nothing else, provides absolute evidence that our approach to education is not about salami slicing, cheese paring or any other kind of food cutting-up that could be described.
There are good and great things happening in any period, and some occurred under the last Labour Government. I am thinking of the academy programme, in particular, which was the baby of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The former Chairman of the education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said that he understood the approach towards the first wave of schools in the academy programme under the last Government, but it was always Tony Blair’s ambition that, eventually, to use his own words, “every school” could be an academy.
The new coalition programme is about focusing on the elements that can make the most difference, prioritising the areas, the people and the children that most need help at the most pivotal times in their lives, and then trusting professionals to get on and do the job. When it comes to spending money where it can make the most difference, I believe in people, not palaces. Of course the school environment makes a difference, but what makes an even bigger difference is the person standing at the front of the class—the person who can inspire and lead those young people, helping them to learn. That is why I welcome the extension of Teach First, the introduction of Teach Now and new initiatives such as Troops to Teachers.
It is often said that no one forgets a good teacher, but I have met many people who have forgotten a good smart board. In the Building Schools for the Future programme, the £1,625 spent per pupil on IT would have been much better spent in investing in our human resources and our people.
As to focusing on the people who need help most, there is the pupil premium, supplemented by the education endowment fund. Although it is right to debate how that formula works and how the transition to the pupil premium will work, I would love to hear any Labour Member challenge the principle of the pupil premium and say that it is the wrong way to go about funding education. There should be an amount per pupil and then a supplement—[Interruption.] I am talking about the structure. The supplement will go to those who need it most. It puts the money where it is most needed and it will incentivise schools to take on the most needy pupils rather than have the top-skimming about which people rightly complain.
I have virtually no time left so I shall conclude by saying that focus on the most formative times is important. That is why I particularly welcome the extension of the early-years free allowance and the extension to the neediest children at age two. Every piece of academic evidence that I have ever seen says that it is most important to focus on the very earliest years to help with children’s futures. That will affect their ability to read and their behaviour and discipline, which affects all those around them.
We thus have diversity and choice in respect of school types and we have progressivity in respect of the pupil premium and other measures. We also have an evidence-based, financially responsible approach that will allow more schools to prosper, more teachers to flourish and more children to become everything they possibly can be.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We have had a very good debate, which has included contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley), my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). The debate has been well informed, with Back Benchers in particular bringing their expertise to the subject.
The Government are embarking on an ideological experiment with the children of this country. Let us look at some of the measures that have been discussed this afternoon. The pupil premium has featured quite largely. It is supposed to be the Liberal Democrats’ flagship contribution to the coalition Government, so important that any funding for it would be in addition to planned spending on schools. That is what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) said was the benchmark, and that is what the Prime Minister said. He said that it would be additional. That is what a premium is, after all: something on top. Then along came George, and the Treasury boffins.
I know that the Secretary of State is a very cultured man. I would say that he is a very literary man. Some might say that he is sometimes a self-dramatising man. However, no one would ever be so vulgar as to suggest that he is a man with an eye for detail, or with his finger firmly on the figures. How else can we explain the fact that he was popping open the champagne when he received his settlement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite having just been done up like a kipper?
Let me give the Secretary of State some advice. If the Chancellor offers the same amount of cash next year as this year, that is a cut in real terms. If he then offers to top it up so that, per pupil, it does not keep up with cost increases over the next few years, that is not a pupil premium, but a real cut per pupil. It is not a pupil premium, but an old Treasury con. The Secretary of State should have known better.
Kevin Brennan
I have not enough time, I am afraid. Well, I might give way in a minute.
One can accept that the Secretary of State, with his challenged grasp of numbers, might be beguiled by the Chancellor, with all his confusing charts and tables—that is perfectly possible—but how can we explain the reaction of his Liberal Democrat chum in the Department? How does the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), respond to this absorption of the supposedly additional flagship pupil premium into a schools budget that has been reduced per head in real terms? Answer: she brags about it. She will have trouble bragging about it when she starts trying to explain to head teachers in Brent Central why their budgets have been cut despite the introduction of the so-called pupil premium. She will have to use all the expertise that she has built up over the years in preparing dodgy bar graphs for Liberal Democrat focus leaflets.
We can all imagine the scene. Brent head teacher: “But my budget has gone down! Where is the pupil premium?” The hon. Member for Brent Central: “Let me just show you this bar graph. It clearly demonstrates that although you have less money, you have more money than you would have had if we had cut the budget more deeply. You have therefore benefited from the pupil premium.” Brent Head Teacher: “Oh, well, that’s all right then.” Come off it! The hon. Lady must think that head teachers in her constituency were born yesterday. It is a con. When the final budget figures land on head teachers’ desks across the country, it will take more than a few dodgy bar graphs from the hon. Lady and a few flowery flourishes from the Secretary of State to con professional school leaders into swallowing this nonsense.
It is no wonder the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) walked out when the Secretary of State admitted that this was simply an increase in cash terms. [Hon. Members: “Stormed out!”] Stormed out, indeed. According to the hon. Gentleman’s website, he fights for schools in his area. I believe it, after his reaction to the Secretary of State’s announcement to the House. I know that the Minister who will be winding up the debate loves a bit of poetry, so I will give him some Yeats. It was a case of
“I will arise and go now”
when the hon. Member for Bradford East heard what the Secretary of State had to say.
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in what is a witty and well-presented speech, although he is using paltry facts to great effect. The truth is that with funding for the NHS protected—unlike under Labour—along with funding for international aid, the threat to education was significant. People were talking about cuts of 10%, 20% and possibly higher. Therefore it must be seen as a good result that, in an extremely tough overall financial round, the education and schools budget, including the pupil premium, is being increased in real terms.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not increasing in real terms per head over the next few years, but that is not the point. I would accept that if that were the Government’s explanation for what they are trying to do, but they are trying to con people into believing that the pupil premium is truly a premium, an additional sum of money. That is what they promised; that is what the Prime Minister promised, but it is not what is being delivered.
What else do the Lib Dems get out of this?
Kevin Brennan
I have not got much time, but I might give way before the end of my speech if the hon. Gentleman is lucky.
What else do the Lib Dems get out of this deal? They get free schools that bypass local democracy, which they used to be so keen on, and that can be set up without any planning permission. They can be set up in an undertaker’s if that is what people want, which would make for an interesting school run. The Lib Dems also get a 60% cut in the capital programme, with resources diverted to the Conservatives’ peripheral ideological experiment, and a systematic dismantling of any system or programme that promotes collaboration and working together within the family of schools. No school is an island. Yes, by all means give schools freedom and autonomy from unnecessary bureaucracy, but let us please acknowledge that, without any structure for co-operation, standards ultimately suffer.
Let us look at school sports partnerships, which were mentioned in the debate. This morning at a meeting in the House of Commons we heard from Jo Phillips, a school sports co-ordinator in the Prime Minister’s Witney constituency, who is about to be made redundant by the Secretary of State. Along with others, she described the transformation that school sports partnerships have brought in Oxfordshire and across the country. She absolutely dismissed the guff we heard from the Under-Secretary of State at Education questions on Monday, and said she could not believe that the Prime Minister could possibly have been told what the full consequences of the complete withdrawal of funding would be for his constituency and the country as a whole.
I hope the Secretary of State has explained to the Prime Minister what he is doing with school sports partnerships. We all saw his dramatic transformation from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hyde when the Prime Minister walked into the Chamber in the middle of Education questions on Monday, so powerful was his zeal to please his boss. Perhaps the Government were a bit hasty in getting rid of those relaxation pods they lampooned before they came into office, because the Secretary of State looked badly in need of a place for a nice lie down at the time. I hope he has explained to the Prime Minister that, for the sake of funding a peripheral ideological programme, he has cut a system that has enjoyed near-universal support among teachers, sports people, parents and pupils, and that has transformed pupils’ lives—and that he did so on a day when the International Olympic Committee was visiting London means he has also greatly endangered Britain’s Olympic legacy.
Kevin Brennan
I will briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman before concluding my speech.
Dan Rogerson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Along with his colleague the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), he might want to stay behind for some extra tuition about how to square the cuts proposed by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), with the situation that all Departments would be facing had Labour got back into office, unlike what we have secured in this coalition, which will be extra money for education.
Kevin Brennan
If the hon. Gentleman examines the record, I think he will find that when his party colleague, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), was discussing this with the previous Education Secretary, the schools budget had been protected and the right hon. Gentleman refused to do a deal because he claimed the Conservatives had already protected that sum of money for schools and he could get a pupil premium on top. As I said, stitched up like a kipper.
Much progress has been made since the days when I, like many other hon. Members, taught in leaky portakabins under the Tories. A lot of progress has been made since those days of inadequate facilities, inadequate resources and inadequate pay for teachers. The Government seem determined to take us back to a fragmented, underfunded future. They should change course now.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this interesting and timely discussion. The shadow Secretary of State began it and I listened to him with some sympathy, because it is not easy to bounce back from coming last of the serious candidates in one’s party’s leadership election—I exclude the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for obvious reasons. The right hon. Gentleman may be a loser, but he is a trier and a trier deserves a hearing in this House. He said that the Government are ideological in their pursuit of excellence, and that was repeated by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). If that is the charge—that we are resolute in our determination and unstinting in our efforts to do the best by our children—I, for one, plead guilty.
The right hon. Gentleman also complained about capital funding so let us put the record straight on that. The level of Department for Education capital funding for the next four years is by no means low. The Department’s average capital budget over the forthcoming period will be higher than any single year’s figure before 2004-05. Yes this was a tough spending round, but he knows that he is comparing these figures against an exceptional year and that in fact they are higher than the ones for any period during the first term of the Labour Government from 1997.
Andy Burnham
Can the Minister offer us one word of convincing explanation as to why, in a spending review when we were told that schools were protected, the Department got a minus 60% capital settlement when the average for the rest of government was minus 30%? Why were schools singled out for double punishment?
Mr Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman was not listening to the argument. The truth of the matter is that the capital deal secured by the Department is tough compared with the previous year, but it is by no means exceptional when one examines capital spending over the lifetime of the Government of whom he was a part. Let us also deal with this issue of revenue spending. He knows that combined the pupil premium and school funding, which is protected, means an increase in funding for the schools budget of £3.6 billion in cash terms by the end of the spending review period, which is a 0.1% real-terms increase in each year of the spending review.
Kevin Brennan
Can the Minister just give us the per pupil figure, as he has given us all those other figures?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman knows that we are protecting school funding in the system. I am talking about flat cash per pupil before adding the pupil premium. He knows what flat cash per pupil means. It means that as the number of pupils increases, the overall budget increases in line.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the education maintenance allowance, so let us get to the bottom of that. I have the research here, although I know he has not read it. It clearly shows that the EMA did increase participation at the margin: 90% of pupils in receipt of it said that they would have participated in education regardless of the EMA. We are going to target resources more effectively at disadvantage. We are going to help people the previous Government failed to help. I do not need to take any lessons from the right hon. Gentleman—Cambridge-educated and pulled up on the shirt-tails of Lord Mandelson and Mr Blair—about what it is like to move from a council estate to a decent education to this place. When he lectures us—
Clive Efford
I recommended an amendment to our education legislation on the pupil premium and the then Government did not accept it, but nor did I have the support of the Liberal Democrats at that time. The pupil premium was meant to be additional. In addition, it was meant to follow the pupil, which would mean that even schools in affluent areas could take pupils that need additional help and get additional money. That is not what the Minister is offering.
Mr Hayes
That is exactly what we are doing. The three things mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are all part of the pupil premium: it is additional, it is targeted at the pupil and it allows the local discretion that he cites. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment was not supported by those on his Front Bench—it was not supported by those who were in government and who had power over these things when they were prepared to let the dead-weight cost of the EMA disadvantage learners across the country.
I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters, because the Government understand that it is time for fresh thinking. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, young people’s education today will have a profound social, economic and cultural impact on what Britain becomes tomorrow. A person’s learning, however, does not—indeed, must not—end with their compulsory schooling. Much of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other hon. Members resonates with the Government’s agenda for further education.
I have just returned from the Association of Colleges conference where yesterday we launched a new strategy for skills that sets out a profoundly optimistic vision for the future of further education and practical learning. I know that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) will welcome that positive approach to practical learning: from the burning fire of ambition to the warm glow of achievement, a future nurtured by professional guidance from an all-age careers service with clear routes for progression; a future for colleges in which their primary responsibility and accountability will be to their learners; and a future in which colleges are free to meet the needs of learners, building confidently on what has been achieved by a better, fairer schools system driven by learners’ needs and teachers’ skills with standards raised ever higher through diversity and choice.
That is why we are pushing ahead with opening more academies, including, for the first time, primary academies. A record 144 academies have opened so far during this academic year and there are many more to come. That is indeed record progress—it took four years for the first 27 academies to open. We know that academies are working, as results continue to rise faster than the national average. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) told the House, academies, specialist schools and other reforms across the world have shown that giving schools autonomy and allowing teachers and head teachers, rather than politicians and bureaucrats, to control schools is what drives up performance.
The early focus has been on outstanding schools, as we want the best schools to lead by example, sharing best practice and working with other schools to bring about sustained improvements to all schools in their area. We will do much more in our determination to tackle the problem of endemic disadvantage that we inherited from Labour. Our pupil premium will rise progressively to £2.5 billion by 2014-15, supporting the attainment of disadvantaged pupils and incentivising good schools to take on pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds. The pupil premium will target extra funding specifically at the most deprived pupils to enable them to receive the support they need to reach their potential and to help schools to reduce inequalities, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) urged us to do.
We trust schools to make good decisions about how to spend the money to support deprived children and to narrow attainment gaps, and we need to, because the gaps that we inherited from the previous Government—the widening gap between rich and poor and the failure to address social mobility—were shocking. They were a damning indictment of that Administration and of the people sitting on the shadow Treasury Bench.
I respect all Members who contributed to this debate. I respect the experience of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) and the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson). I know that people across the House want the best for our future and for our children. However, although some Opposition Members have woken up to the truth that the way to get the best is to put power in the hands of the teachers and to drive the system through the needs of learners, some are wedded to a failed past orthodoxy and we heard it again tonight. I hope that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is not one of those who will defend the failures of the past. I hope that he will embrace reform and that he will come on the journey with us to a better schools system and a better future for our young people. I do not say that all those on the Opposition Benches are without heart. No party has a monopoly on concern or compassion, so I do not say that Labour Members are heartless—I say that their Front Benchers are witless.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Northern Ireland
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we shall take the two motions on Northern Ireland together.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this we shall take the following motion:
That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
Mr Swire
These orders update the law governing elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to district councils in Northern Ireland in advance of elections in 2011.
I will deal first with the Assembly order, which is much the smaller of the two. That is because the law governing elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly was substantially amended as recently as 2009. Since then, some minor procedural updates have been applied to European and parliamentary elections that, for consistency, should also be applied to Assembly elections. For example, article 3 of the order makes provision to allow a candidate standing in the name of two or more parties to have one of those party’s emblems on the ballot paper.
It also enables a person who cannot sign his or her signature to use a mark in place of any signature required at the nomination stage. Article 4 requires individuals to give reasons if they request their absent vote to be sent to a different address from that at which they are registered. Those are clearly relatively small changes, but they nevertheless mirror updates made to the law since 2009 that apply at other elections in Northern Ireland, and they will provide for greater consistency.
The draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010 is the more substantial order, and provides a much-needed update of the law governing local elections in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 made a considerable number of changes to the law governing parliamentary elections across the United Kingdom. As I have indicated, those changes were applied to Northern Ireland Assembly elections and European elections in 2009, but have not yet been applied to district council elections in Northern Ireland. They are set out in schedule 1 to the order, and they include allowing returning officers to correct procedural errors and supply documents in other languages and formats.
Schedule 1 also makes provision for the control of donations to candidates in local elections in Northern Ireland, in line with the donation controls that apply at all other elections in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Schedule 2 makes changes to absent voting procedures, which again already apply at other elections in Northern Ireland. They include adding registered social workers to the list of those who may attest absent vote applications on the grounds of illness and disability, which will make it easier for people with disabilities who live in the community to apply for an absent vote. Schedule 3 aligns the law relating to access to and inspection of documents at local elections with procedures at all other elections in Northern Ireland.
The order also amends the local election rules contained in schedule 5 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. That includes updating the list of acceptable forms of photographic ID that can be presented in order to vote in Northern Ireland, which is of course crucial to ensure consistency of approach for all polls in 2011.
The order is substantial, and I would not wish to detain the House by providing an in-depth description of each provision. I hope the House is satisfied that it contains small but important changes to the law that will provide much-needed modernisation of local election procedures in Northern Ireland and greater consistency with other elections across the UK.
Finally, article 3 of the local elections order sets the date of the next district council elections in Northern Ireland as 5 May 2011. Hon. Members will be aware that in 2008, the previous Government agreed to a request from the Northern Ireland Executive to postpone the local elections that were scheduled to take place in May the following year. The House subsequently approved legislation to postpone the election until 2011, on a date to be specified nearer the time. The postponement was to allow time for new local government boundaries to be redrawn as part of the overall review of public administration that was taking place in Northern Ireland. That review was to provide, among other things, for the number of district councils in Northern Ireland to be reduced from 26 to 11.
I regret to report that that reduction did not proceed as planned. Although the local government boundaries commissioner reported to the Executive with proposed new boundaries on time in 2009, an order has still not been brought before the Assembly to give effect to them. This June I made it absolutely clear to the Executive that there could be no prospect of further postponement of the elections beyond the two years previously agreed. I was also advised that further delay in passing the order to give effect to the boundaries would seriously jeopardise planning for elections in May 2011. The Executive therefore needed to take an urgent decision on whether the proposed new councils could be delivered in time to allow for elections to them in May 2011.
On 15 June I received confirmation from the Minister for the Environment in the Executive that the reorganisation would not now go ahead in 2011. I announced shortly afterwards that there was now no option but to hold elections to the existing 26 councils in May 2011. The local elections order will provide for that. I know that some hon. and right hon. Members may have concerns about those elections being combined with both Assembly elections and a potential referendum on the alternative vote. I have received the advice of both the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer on this matter, and both are confident that a combined poll in May 2011 can be successfully delivered if the risks are properly managed.
My officials are working closely with the commission and the chief electoral officer in the run-up to the polls to ensure that there is an early identification and resolution of any potential problems.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister alludes to the difficulties that could be presented, with the distinct possibility—or probability—of our having three elections, using two different voting systems, on the same day. Will he ensure that as much co-ordination and co-operation takes place to ensure that after this legislation passes, which it undoubtedly will, the people of Northern Ireland get the maximum amount of information to ensure that they are fully prepared for what will be an unprecedented voting day next May?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we must do that. In fact there are two elections, which will be held in the normal way for the people in Northern Ireland, and the third is just a straight yes/no vote. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will vote in the same way as I will.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The Minister mentioned that in his meeting with the Electoral Commission, it had indicated that it was happy to facilitate all the elections taking place on the same day, provided that the risks were properly managed. Will he also agree that the commission said that it needed to ensure that it is properly resourced, given that there will be complications involving, for example, the number of ballot boxes available, and a number of other logistical issues, which will require more expenditure than a regular election?
Mr Swire
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Of course this needs to be properly resourced, and the necks of both the Secretary of State and myself are on the line if anything goes wrong. What we all want to avoid, on both sides of the House, are scenes such as those that we saw in the recent general election, when people were turned away from the polling stations. The matter is further complicated because some polling stations in Northern Ireland are quite small. There is also the issue of screening, and, as the hon. Lady said, of ballot boxes. I understand that the ballot boxes are being sourced at the moment. She is right to say that we must get it right, and to do that requires proper planning and funding.
As I was saying, my officials are working closely with the commission and the chief electoral officer in the run-up to the polls to ensure that there is early identification and resolution of any problems such as the ones that we have just heard about.
I hope that the House is satisfied that the vast majority of provisions in these orders will make small but important changes to provide for greater consistency with elections elsewhere in the UK. I also hope that hon. and right hon. Members are reassured that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure successful combined polls in May 2011, and will therefore agree that the date of the next local elections should be set for 5 May next year. I commend these orders to the House.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
Northern Ireland has made remarkable political progress, and that has been integral to the whole peace process. There are many people both inside and outside Northern Ireland who deserve great credit for that. Enormous efforts have been made, as is reflected in the celebrated success to date. For the first time in a generation, the overwhelming majority of people can live peaceful lives free from violence. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland still has a particular political ecology and the situation remains fragile. That is why any proposals to change the way in which the electoral situation works in Northern Ireland require great scrutiny, consultation and forethought. It is clear to us, however, that in the Government’s rush to gerrymander Scottish, Welsh and Irish parliamentary seats, they are failing to listen to the deep concerns of Northern Ireland politicians about how ill-considered changes could have negative consequences for Northern Ireland.
Clearly, the motivation and rationale behind the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which will apply to Northern Ireland, are questionable. We support the principle of an AV referendum, yet the Government have refused to split it from the much more contentious matter of constituency design. The Government claim that over-representation is a primary driver of the changes, yet the UK sits in the middle of the EU table, with one MP per 110,000 people.
The Government have also said that the reduced number of MPs will save money, but it is hard to see how that can be true. There is no evidence that reducing the number of MPs will cut case loads, so unless the Government intend to make MPs less accessible to their constituents, they will have to resource MPs for the relative uplift in constituency size. It is worth noting that this week, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) suggested that people who will no longer qualify for legal aid because of the changes that the Government are about to implement should go to their local Member of Parliament. It is therefore clear that the Government are intent on increasing MPs’ case loads in any case. That will need to be resourced, so savings seem unlikely.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his position. Will he explain the relevance of his comments to the orders?
Eric Joyce
Yes, of course. The votes will take place on the same day, so the arguments that apply to the rest of the UK also apply to Northern Ireland. A particular complication is that, as a consequence of the orders, Northern Ireland will also have local government elections on the same day.
Indeed, taken together with the Government’s plan for fixed-term Parliaments, the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill appears to be designed simply to assure the coalition a five-year term, with constituency redesign giving it the best chance of re-election. We therefore believe that it sits outside the margins of acceptable democratic practice.
The House of Lords has narrowly decided that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is not hybrid, yet it is strange that the Government should decide that two Scottish constituencies will be treated as special cases and exempted, while Northern Ireland, where the Assembly may be directly affected by the measure, is not to be a special case. The strength of Northern Ireland’s democratic institutions is crucial to the peace process, and the legislation governing the running of Northern Ireland Assembly elections was constructed specifically to ensure wide community representation. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister assure the House that the changes that he intends to make will not affect the delicate balance in the Northern Ireland electoral system, especially for smaller parties?
Another primary concern is that the strict 5% thresholds, which are explicit in the Bill, will reduce the scope for the boundary commissioners to take local variables into account. Arithmetic will trump all other considerations and local communities will be split between constituencies. Professor Ron Johnson of Bristol university, for example, said that splitting some wards between constituencies will be inevitable. The Boundary Commission has confirmed that. Wards will no longer be the building blocks of constituencies. In many cases, natural geographical boundaries such as rivers will have to be ignored, as will community links and historical factors, which are so important in Northern Ireland.
According to the Boundary Commission, the threshold is also likely to lead to frequent reviews, which means that some constituencies will change with each review. That will further destabilise the relationship between local communities—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The orders do not relate to thresholds. Can we please focus on the orders?
Eric Joyce
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In the context of the reduced sensitivity to local variables, we believe that the constraints on local inquiries are especially serious. At a time of such significant changes, that is particularly important.
The political ecology in Northern Ireland is particular; it is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government plan to change the electoral system and the constituencies in Scotland, England and Wales, and they are not taking sufficient account of the peculiar variables that apply in Northern Ireland. As a consequence of the orders, local elections will take place on the same day as other elections, and there could be additional complexity. It is important for the Government to take into account the different nature of Northern Ireland. We do not believe that they are doing that. Consequently, the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and of the United Kingdom as a whole, will not be served.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
We do not often get three hours to debate Northern Ireland business. It is good that we will be here possibly till 10 o’clock.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. As the orders are being taken together, we have just an hour and a half.
Mr Dodds
May I express my great frustration and annoyance at our being denied time to debate these important matters? However, I am sure that your statement will come as a great relief to other hon. Members, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In all seriousness, as the Minister said, the orders are technical, although they flow from significant primary legislation, which we have already debated at some length since we returned from the summer recess.
On the issue of having the three elections on one day, the orders are designed to make the elections run smoothly and prevent difficulties in the conduct of the elections for the chief electoral officer, his officers and, not least, the electorate. That is welcome, particularly on issues such as making sure that the timetable is consistent for both the council elections and the Assembly elections. There has been some criticism in previous years in Northern Ireland about the rather strange timetable adopted for council elections compared with Assembly and parliamentary elections. If my memory serves me right, when I served in local government and had to submit nomination papers, that had to be done four and a half weeks before election day, so there seemed to be an inordinately long campaign for local government elections compared with others.
Obviously it is important that the timetable is synchronised and that issues such as postal and proxy votes are properly managed so that people applying for them receive one package through the post containing the necessary forms and one containing the three ballot papers. I am glad to hear that there will be three separate, differently coloured ballot papers. I am sure that we have all learned the lesson from Scotland—this never happened in Northern Ireland—when there was an attempt to have two different kinds of ballot on one paper. That was a big mistake and I am sure that it will never happen again.
We are where we are as far as the coincidence of the council and Assembly elections and the referendum is concerned. Obviously, it is preferable that, where possible, there are not so many choices on so many matters before the electorate on any given date, but people in Northern Ireland are used to having joint elections. Indeed, the council elections in 2001 and 2005 coincided with a Westminster general election. If memory serves me right, it may have happened before that. I know that at one time elections were deliberately brought together by the then leader of the Ulster Unionist party, which is no longer represented in this House, because he thought that it would increase turnout and support for his party. As with so many of his calculations, it did not quite work out that way on the day.
This is a sensible set of provisions for 5 May next year. The Minister referred to the date of the council elections for next year, and said that it was the result of the Executive not acting on the recommendation to proceed with the reform of local government. He did not go into the reasons for that, of course, but I would not want the House to be under the impression that this was the result of a lack of desire among most of the parties in the Assembly to make progress on the issue. Even if the reform did not lead to a reduction in the number of councils, other reforms were proposed, such as greater collaboration among councils and the various departments for which they are responsible. Unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve the major cost saving that would have accrued to councils in Northern Ireland because of the intransigence of one party, Sinn Fein, which rejected that constructive proposal. Therefore we are left having to proceed with the election with no real reform to local government due.
When costings were carried out for the council reforms, it became clear that there would have been considerable up-front costs. Given that the Northern Ireland block grant has been severely hit as a result of the recent comprehensive spending review, and the already severe restrictions, difficulties and challenges facing the Northern Ireland Executive on public expenditure, it was felt that this was not an appropriate time to proceed with that particular reform. Obviously, when it comes to choosing between council reform and health expenditure, education and so on, people are right to choose the latter. That is the background to the reason for the proposals for the date of the election and why they will involve the same number of councils as previously.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who spoke for the Opposition, referred to the reduction in the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland that may result from legislation going through Parliament at the moment and wondered what would have happened had there been a reduction in the number of councils. Is there not a danger in Northern Ireland that the larger we create constituencies and councils, the more removed government becomes from the people?
Mr Dodds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that. The previous Government proposed reducing the number of councils to seven. I am the first to support a reduction in governance and the number of elected officials and all the rest of it, but a reduction to seven councils would have meant that Northern Ireland councils would be bigger than any other region of Europe. I am sure that the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), will go into considerable detail on that in his speech.
The lack or inadequacy of consultation on the primary legislation with parties in the Assembly and the Executive has been mentioned. I do not want to go over that, but consultation on Assembly and local elections with the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland is mentioned in the orders and the explanatory memorandum. I recently met the new chief electoral officer. He is a very impressive officer and I think he will do an excellent job, but it is clear that he sought, during consultations on both the primary legislation and the secondary legislation that we are debating, some changes to the way in which elections are carried out that were not proposed by the Northern Ireland Office.
I am thinking in particular about the removal of polling agents from Northern Ireland polling stations. The Minister is nodding his head, so perhaps he has held discussions on polling agents. This is an important matter. Commendably, we have a sophisticated and elaborate system to tackle identity fraud and the abuse of the electoral system. As has been said, people must now produce certain types of photographic identification or sign postal votes, and their signatures are carefully examined. Postal and proxy vote abuse has been considerably reduced from the large-scale abuse that took place in previous elections. Our system is a model for dealing with postal votes for the rest of the UK. If the rest of the UK wants to cut out the abuse of postal voting, people should look at the administration and regime in Northern Ireland. Clearly, our system is now without any kind of abuse at all.
However, why do we still need polling agents—representatives of political parties—sitting in polling stations in Northern Ireland? The NIO, which is still responsible for elections, should address that, because it is clear that one or two parties—I am thinking of one in particular—clearly abuse that for purposes not in keeping with the legislation. Information is taken out of polling stations, so that voters who have not voted can be identified and then, of course, visited. They will be asked, “Why have you not voted?” and told to get out to vote. In certain parts of the Province and in certain circumstances, people will feel intimidated by that, so polling agents are being used for nefarious purposes. I urge the NIO to take that seriously when it next gets a legislative opportunity.
Naomi Long
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one difficulty is that when people are approached in those circumstances and they realise that the information has been garnered at the polling station, they fear that the fact of how they have voted is also available? People are often quite intimated by the notion that the ballot is less than fully secret.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We might sit in the comfort of this Chamber and know that the ballot is secret and that the information cannot get out, but for a lot of people, exactly the scenario that she has painted is what they believe to be the case. They believe that because information has been gathered on whether they have voted thus far, people will be able to find out how they have voted, and the people who call at their doors make no effort to disabuse them of that notion either. This is an important matter. Nowadays there is no reason at all for that provision to remain, if we really are going to ensure that we have fair and clean elections in Northern Ireland. As has been mentioned on a number of occasions, the ecology of the electoral system is different—and it is different: people are more easily intimidated by the way certain parties operate—so removing that provision would be a step towards improving the democratic process and making people less concerned about exercising their franchise.
The management of elections by the chief electoral officer and the issue of resources, which is an important point, have already been mentioned. In my discussions with the chief electoral officer, the point that he laid most emphasis on was resources. The matter of ballot boxes has also been raised, which is another issue that I know has been discussed. All sorts of imaginative suggestions have been canvassed, and I hope that it will be possible to find a sensible solution that minimises costs.
There is also the issue of polling stations. The Minister referred to the fact that polling stations in Northern Ireland were sometimes smaller than they are elsewhere. Again, I would urge him in his discussions with the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to do what I have done, which is to urge the authorities to be a bit more imaginative when it comes to the buildings and premises that they use as polling stations. People are too fixated on the traditional buildings—“We’ve always used this building and we can’t depart from tradition”—whereas new premises have sprung up, and many people are used to doing things differently. Sometimes the electoral officers are far too hidebound by the past in managing this issue, so I would again urge the Minister in his discussions respectfully to ask the chief electoral officer to be much more flexible. There is a consultation under way—certainly in my constituency, and I am sure in those of other hon. Members—that is closing in December on the very issue of polling stations, so this is an opportune moment for the matter to be pursued.
Finally, so as to leave plenty of time for others who wish to contribute to this debate, let me say something about enforcement. The local elections order is fairly substantial, as the Minister said, as is the Assembly order. When I read through the detail of all the rules, what struck me was this: what happens when those rules, particularly those applying to the conduct of the election by candidates and parties, are breached? In my experience, it seems that we can prescribe all sorts of rules, from rules on the colour of ballot papers to rules on whether the X or the “1” should be marked in black pen or in pencil—we debated that in the primary legislation—or what would constitute a clear preference, all of which are matters of great detail. Indeed, the forms are set out in incredible detail in the legislation, so the issue is extremely important. Yet I have found that when matters are drawn to the attention of the authorities—the chief electoral officer and then the people responsible for prosecuting such matters—very little is ever done about breaches of the rules.
I want to refer to a matter that I raised during the debate on the primary legislation on the parliamentary voting system. One party in Northern Ireland—Sinn Fein—seems to be adept at producing detailed replicas of polling cards and other official material. On one side they appear to be authentic, but the other side has party political propaganda, some of it of a vicious nature, designed to persuade people that not only is Sinn Fein recommending voting a certain way, but that the electoral authorities are also doing so.
There were examples of that practice during the last Westminster election. One was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and there was at least one in my constituency. There were also other illegal practices. The matter was drawn to the attention of the then chief electoral officer, who took the matter seriously, and it has been referred on to the authorities to consider what action should be taken. We know that there are serious consequences, and we will watch carefully, as will the electorate and the people of Northern Ireland, as well as the media, to see what happens about a clear and flagrant breach of electoral law.
I do not expect the Minister to respond in any shape or form on the specifics of a case, but I raise the matter because it concerns me that from time to time in Northern Ireland elections, whether local, Assembly or Westminster elections, all sorts of illegal practices go on. Vast amounts of money are spent, the election returns show that only a small amount was spent. Although everyone knows that tens of thousands of pounds have been spent but never declared. Such matters should be taken seriously.
It is all very well to pass legislation, regulations and rules. We debate them at length, and scrutinise them properly, but we must ensure that there is effective and proper enforcement, otherwise people will take the signal that at the next election they can push the boundaries even further and get away with far worse. That is insidious, and it needs to be stamped on. I am happy to lend my support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the orders.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), but I hope that I do not disappoint him with the length of my speech, which will be very short. As the Minister who, in January last year, took through the order to postpone the elections in 2009, I thought I owed the House at least one or two brief comments.
First, I thank the Minister for keeping the promise that I made in Committee last January that the Northern Ireland council elections would be held in 2011. Members of the Committee questioned what guarantees there would be that council elections would be held that year, and I asked them to back my judgment, which they did. I am not in a position to deliver on that judgment now, but the Minister is, and I thank him for following through my commitment.
The Minister explained that the reason for the delay was connected with the review of public administration, an initiative that began with the Executive in 2002. Direct rule Ministers took it over, but it then quite rightly returned to the Executive as their responsibility in 2007. Indeed, I remember that in 2007 Ministers in the Executive took up the issue with some relish because they could see the merits of greater efficiency by reorganising public bodies, whether health, police or local government.
In April 2008, the then Minister for the Environment, Arlene Foster, wrote to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward), with a request that the council elections be delayed for two years to 2011. She made the compelling case on behalf of the Executive that the complexity of reorganising the local council structure and boundaries was quite a challenge: the single transferable vote system would require new council wards, new districts and new grouping of district electoral areas. Although we were reluctant to take the dramatic step of cancelling elections, we felt that, in view of the exceptional circumstances, it was justifiable and we introduced the necessary legislation.
I had further extensive discussions with Arlene Foster’s successor, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and his successor in the role, Edwin Poots. It is of course a matter of regret that Edwin Poots wrote to the Minister in June this year to say that, for various reasons, it would be impossible to proceed with the changes to the local council boundaries. Great frustration was expressed about that, not least, I am sure, by the Minister himself because he will be able to see the advantages involved. None the less, these challenges must now be tackled by the Executive Members and by the Minister for the Environment in Northern Ireland, rather than by this House. Indeed, if I were to stray and to offer any more opinions to the right hon. Member for Belfast North and his colleagues, they would soon intervene on me.
Some concerns remain, however, and I should be interested to hear the Minister’s comments. Having now set the date for the council elections in 2011, the pressure for local government reform is off, in a sense, which is a pity because I am sure that the Minister in the Executive will want to see the reforms put in place, as will other Members of the Executive. There would be great dividends if that were possible. Will the Minister tell us tonight whether there are any signs of progress? If reform were to pick up apace, would he be prepared to come back to this House with a proposition to bring forward the date of the next local council elections in Northern Ireland, which would otherwise happen in 2015?
Mr Dodds
The right hon. Gentleman was much respected for the work he did as a Minister for Northern Ireland, but any notion of bringing forward the date of the next council elections from 2015 would not find favour with the parties in Northern Ireland, not least because it would be deeply unfair on those who had been elected on the basis of a four-year term suddenly to say to them, “Your term is going to be truncated.” So although I understand where he is coming from, and the sentiments that he has expressed, I urge him to rethink that proposition.
Paul Goggins
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I am sure that he will share my concern, given his deep knowledge of the electoral system in Northern Ireland, that the council boundaries are way out of date. There is therefore some urgency in trying to move to new council boundaries that reflect a more modern approach. I do not expect a positive answer from the Minister about bringing forward the date of the next local council elections after 2011, but I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to see this as an urgent matter and not one that can simply be left on the shelf. I am concerned that, with the introduction of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, attention will now be focused more on constituencies and away from local government structure in Northern Ireland, and anything that will maintain the sense of urgency about the need for the local government reform will be a good thing. I repeat, however, that these are no longer matters for this House; they have now quite rightly been devolved to the Executive in Northern Ireland.
There is also the question of the practical implications of holding the various elections on the same day. I know that the Minister said he had consulted on this, and that he was confident they could all be held on the same day. I pay tribute to all those who administer the elections in Northern Ireland professionally and effectively, and I do not call into question their ability to conduct those elections one bit, but there is a debate about the various issues that are at stake: elections to the Assembly, elections to local councils and, probably, the question of whether to have an alternative vote system or not. That has been debated endlessly elsewhere. We are talking about elections using the single transferable vote system for councils and for the Assembly, which is very complicated and takes time. I urge the Minister to keep up the pressure on those who will administer the system to make sure that all the right questions are asked and answered.
There is the further point—I am sure that Minister will have considered it—that if the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is passed as drafted, in 2015 we will have council elections, a general election and Assembly elections on the same day, using different—possibly very different—electoral systems and under new boundaries. This will be the height of complication. Again, I urge the Minister to pay close attention. He said in the course of his remarks that his neck is on the line. I well know that feeling, but I am sure he will do a fine job.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Surely the height of complication would be the situation in American states such as Montana, where people voted for the American President, for the Congress, for the state governor, in state elections and sometimes even in local elections—sometimes with additional propositions as well. They seem to manage it in Montana, so surely they could manage it in Northern Ireland.
Paul Goggins
I am not saying that those who administer elections in Northern Ireland would be incapable of doing so. I am simply making the point that this will place a burden on the system in Northern Ireland that it has never faced before. There are also implications for the electoral cycle. In perpetuity—unless the Minister offers alternatives—council elections and Assembly elections will always be held on the same day in Northern Ireland on a four-year cycle. Again, I think that should be a cause for reflection. However, I have nothing but good wishes for the Minister in ensuring that all these issues are dealt with. I am sure he will do very well. In so far as he ensures that these elections are held properly in 2011 and subsequently, he will have my full support.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I support the orders. I would like briefly to raise a number of issues, some of which have already been touched on by other Members.
First, I express my disappointment that greater progress has not been made on the review of public administration in Northern Ireland, particularly as the local government elections were postponed to facilitate that process. It has become something of a political soap opera—not quite as long running as “Coronation Street” and certainly not as entertaining. It has not reached a satisfactory conclusion as yet, and there seems to be little prospect that it will—despite the fact that it has cost a lot of money. Most people would have liked to have seen this issue brought to a more satisfactory conclusion.
Given that the last local government elections were held almost six years ago there is a democratic deficit, so it is important to give people the opportunity to refresh their mandate in local government. It is disappointing that this is being done in the absence of reform.
I noted what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said about the possibility of bringing the elections forward, but I concur with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) as I do not believe that further tampering with the electoral cycle is the best way of dealing with the issue. I agree that there is an urgency about taking the review of public administration forward in Northern Ireland. However, local government has demonstrated in the past its ability to co-operate even under its current structures—through arc21, for example, which deals with a number of councils’ waste. At the very least, we should expect enhanced co-operation so that some savings can be made without having to tamper with the cycle further.
I seek the Minister’s reassurance about photographic identification. In May, Westminster elections and council by-elections were held on the same day in my constituency. People turned up to vote, only to find that their photographic ID was admissible for one election but not for the other. This caused extreme distress, particularly for older people, who were relying on transport passes to get the correct photographic ID. They were not able to vote in both elections, as they had expected. I hope that the arrangements involving identification documents can be simplified so that when people turn up at polling stations, they are fully confident that they will be able to cast their votes.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on another issue, although I do not expect a full answer from him this evening. Given that the qualification to vote is established when the electoral register is compiled, which means that people who are on the register and duly marked down for an election have the right to vote in it, the purpose of ID is simply to establish exactly who they are. However, there remains a restriction for foreign nationals who have a right to vote in elections, but no right to use their passports from their home nations as a means of identification. They experience significant difficulties when they try to vote in elections in which they are entitled to vote, but cannot obtain valid identification documents. Given that the purpose of the documents is simply to prove that individuals are the individuals listed in the register, I think that the matter should be dealt with to ensure full participation in the community by those who wish to vote.
Along with other Members, I have already raised concerns about the holding of three elections on the same day next May. The Minister made quite a brave statement when he said that his neck would be on the line if the logistical issues were not handled well. It remains to be seen whether people will want to hold him to that commitment, but I have to say that this is not just about the logistical issues, although they are hugely important. Of course we want the Electoral Commission to be properly resourced to ensure that the elections can be discharged fairly, but we should also consider the democratic deficit that may result from the holding of elections at the same time.
There is always a risk that the Assembly elections and the issues connected with them—I think that it usually happens this way round—will obscure important debates about local governance in relation to local government elections. We need to consider how much media coverage is given to the local government debate, which has a direct impact on people’s lives but tends to be less glamorous—for want of a better word—than the issues dealt with in the Assembly. However, there is a chance that both issues could be overshadowed by the national campaign on the referendum. In Northern Ireland particularly, for obvious reasons, people might focus on the Assembly election, given its importance, rather than on the impact of electoral reform and local government.
A number of Members have said that we could surely cope with these complex elections, and it is true that ours is a very sophisticated electorate. There was a period during which we had an election, if not two, almost every year. People have become accustomed to voting and to how to cast their votes. The electorate are sophisticated in terms of being able to manage the electoral process, and, as others have pointed out, we have had two elections on the same day before. Nevertheless, the additional complication caused by a third election on a very different issue causes me some concern.
I believe that the combination of the local government and Assembly elections, while not ideal, may be manageable. I seek the Minister’s reassurance that he will do all in his power to ensure that people are fully informed about the issues on which they are voting and the consequences of their votes, particularly with respect to the referendum and the two elections that will take place on the same day, and to ensure that the Electoral Commission is properly funded in order to be able to notify people.
Mr Dodds
The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland, or perhaps the Electoral Commission, has a responsibility to urge people to vote much earlier in the day. We have already experienced problems with queuing, and given that there will be separate ballot boxes, the process will take much longer on this occasion. It is therefore vital for a press and media campaign to be organised officially at an early stage. People must be told, “Do not do what you normally do and wait until the last minute, or after teatime; get out and vote earlier.” That would be a very profitable campaign on the part of the commission.
Naomi Long
I entirely agree. I think it hugely important for people to be encouraged to cast their votes at the earliest opportunity. When people have turned up with the wrong documentation, it has been useful for them to be able to revisit the polling station if necessary. However, it would be beneficial generally if we could prevent what tends to be a post-teatime rush, with queues forming late in the day. I hope that that can be impressed on the Electoral Commission, and that the commission can be properly resourced so that its campaign is foremost in people’s minds. People have become accustomed to voting at times of the day that are convenient for them. On this occasion, there will be three different elections with three different ballot papers, and it is important that people recognise how much time will be consumed in filling them in.
I seek the Minister’s reassurance particularly in respect of photo-ID and ensuring that people are properly informed about the nature of the elections taking place on the day.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I will be brief, as there are just a couple of issues that I want to raise with the Minister.
Wards are the building blocks for both local government districts and parliamentary constituencies, and one of the consequences of the delay in the local government elections is that the ward boundaries have not been reviewed for a considerable time. In my constituency, as a result of the most recent parliamentary boundary review, the ward of Derriaghy is now split between the Lagan Valley constituency and the Belfast West constituency. It is the only ward in Northern Ireland that is split. Other wards need to be reviewed, as there have been significant population movements since the last ward boundaries revision.
As a result of legislation currently passing through the House, we now face the prospect of new parliamentary boundaries being created and a reduction in the number of constituencies, possibly from 18 to 15 in Northern Ireland. That review will take place on the existing ward structures. I therefore seek an assurance from the Minister that we will have a review of the ward boundaries at a very early date. That has been held back because of the review of local government, but the boundaries are now significantly out of date and there are disparities in ward sizes—and, as I have mentioned, in at least one case a ward is split between two parliamentary constituencies. We would be interested to hear what proposals the Minister has in respect of the urgent need to review ward boundaries in Northern Ireland.
My second question relates to the counts that will follow the two elections and the referendum in Northern Ireland next year. What will be the order of precedence for those counts? Will the referendum be counted first, because it is a UK-wide referendum? Will the Assembly election count take place before the local government election count, as has been the case in the past? Will the Minister give us some idea as to what will be the order of the counting of votes following these three separate ballots, and will they all take place in the one counting centre in each of the local areas, or will the referendum ballot be counted separately? I seek clarity on these matters.
Mr Swire
This has been an interesting debate and a number of interesting points have been raised. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), touched only lightly on the proposed legislation under discussion, and seemed to refer rather more to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. He talked about various topics including the House of Lords, Scotland, the boundary commissions and a number of MPs, none of which related to what we are discussing tonight, but his comments were nevertheless interesting for my ministerial colleagues who are present in the Chamber, as they have been discussing that Bill for many days.
The hon. Gentleman said that the changes to the Northern Ireland electoral system are confusing. The changes we propose ensure consistency across all elections in Northern Ireland, making the electoral system clearer for candidates, administrators and voters, and the changes are minor and principally administrative.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) asked a number of interesting questions. He talked about electoral law offences. It is worth putting on record that if a person is suspected of committing such an offence, the chief electoral officer should refer the matter to the police and the prosecuting authorities. Prosecutions are a matter for the Public Prosecution Service, of course. He also talked about the timetabling of local elections. Local election procedures regarding the timetable will now be aligned with the Northern Ireland Assembly timetable by virtue of this order.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about a subject that I discussed: polling agents. As the former Northern Ireland Minister, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), will no doubt remember, the previous Government undertook a full public consultation on that in 2008. There was no consensus then on whether they should be abolished. It is also worth noting that the law allowing for polling agents applies across the UK, but we will review this again after the May 2011 elections. I must confess that I have a considerable interest in this point and am more than happy to discuss it with the right hon. Member for Belfast North over the coming months.
Mr Dodds
I look forward to those discussions. The Minister mentioned a lack of consensus. Obviously we will not get consensus across all the political parties, for the very reasons that I outlined. Would he not put a lot of weight on the views of the chief electoral officer, who surely has an independent view on all this in terms of the conduct of elections?
Mr Swire
I do not think that I am breaking any confidences by saying that I have discussed this matter with the chief electoral officer and his predecessor. I can only say that I am more than happy to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman. I have considerable interest in this and considerable sympathy with where he is coming from. He also raised the issue of political donations. As he will know, the consultation on the provision for donations to political parties in Northern Ireland to be made confidentially concluded on 25 October, and we are considering how best to take that forward.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East spoke, as usual, intelligently and with tremendous knowledge. I know that he shares my frustration that things have not moved along as much as we would have liked on local government reorganisation. He asked whether there are signs of progress, and one hears from time to time various rumblings coming from the hill. The answer is that we must not relax on this matter and we must keep up the pressure, and he was right about that. I shall return to that in a moment, if I may. He also spoke about the combined elections in 2015 and he will not be surprised to hear that no decision has yet been taken—we are trying to get through next year first. I would prefer to await the outcome of the combined polls in 2011 before taking a decision on whether it is desirable to combine elections in 2015 or whether a provision should be made for their separation.
I was asked what the Government are planning to do about the coincidence of elections in 2015. I am writing to all Northern Ireland parties setting out our proposed approach and requesting their views. It should be remembered—we have been discussing this recently in terms of other legislation—that the Secretary of State already has a power to alter the Assembly election date by two months. We will see whether we need to do that at that time.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) talked about outdated boundaries. We would very much hope that the Executive have agreed new boundaries to ensure that they are updated well in advance of 2015, but in any case, I am proposing to write to the Minister for the Environment to take forward such a review immediately after the 2011 elections. I believe I am right in saying that the current boundaries are 19 years old, which is not at all acceptable, so clearly this is something that they need to get on with, regardless of local government reorganisation.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked whether we would bring forward elections. We have received no such request and we would need to consider such a proposal carefully, as we would want to ensure that the transition to new councils and the new set-up was in its final stages. We do not want to chop and change dates without good reason. He would probably support that approach, given that he said that it was with extreme reluctance that he postponed the date of the original election; I believe he said that he did not do that lightly. Nor should we tamper with this. We will have elections in May, but we need to keep up the pressure.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) raised some interesting points about ID, which I had raised with officials today. It is true to say that this order ensures that requirements at all elections are now consistent in Northern Ireland. I am told that people will be able to use the Translink smartpass, provisional driving licence and other smartcards. She also asked about foreigners and foreign ID. It is true that someone can now use an EU driving licence or an EU passport to vote in Assembly and local elections.
Naomi Long
One example that we had a problem with was non-EU documentation, such as that from Commonwealth countries. For example, people who are resident ordinarily in Northern Ireland and have Canadian or Indian passports cannot use them as a document to vote, even though they are entitled to vote in that election.
Mr Swire
The hon. Lady raises a good point. We should make it perfectly clear well in advance of the elections what photo ID will be acceptable. There could be nothing more frustrating than queuing to take part in three elections, arriving almost as the clock is striking 10 o’clock, only to be told that one has the wrong form of ID. That is something we should consider and, again, we need to be properly prepared. We would not want people in any great numbers—or, indeed, any individual—to feel that they had been disfranchised because they were not aware that their ID, which they thought was quite proper and which could be used on airlines and so on, was not appropriate for an election. We heard loud and clear what the hon. Lady had to say.
The hon. Lady also asked about the Assembly election dominating debate, leading to local issues being ignored. It is worth pointing out that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North mentioned, local elections were held successfully alongside Westminster elections in Northern Ireland in both 2001 and 2005. The hon. Lady said that Northern Ireland has a sophisticated voting population, and it is up to the individual candidates to set fire in the minds and hearts of their potential electorate—[Interruption.] Not literally, but in terms of trying to get interest in the election. I think the hon. Lady is probably wrong on this point because having three elections, albeit two voting one way and another being a straight yes or no, will mean that people will talk about the elections much more. I would not be at all surprised if we had a very good turnout. I do not think that one issue should eclipse the other—I think that we are going to have a very political new year.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned ward boundaries. Again, that is a matter for his colleague the Environment Minister in the Executive, but, as we have said, we cannot go on working on boundaries that are nearly 19 years out of date. He also asked a specific question about the electoral night, and I am looking forward to the morning after, which I hope will be one without too much trouble. I am told by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), that the Electoral Commission’s recommendation is that the Assembly election should be first, the referendum second and the local government election third, on the Monday. I believe that that has already been published.
It has been an interesting debate, but not a controversial one. The legislation is necessary to tidy up some anomalies. The contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties will be listened to by the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer. Let us hope that we have a good day next year.
Question put.
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 24 November (Standing Order No. 41A).
Northern Ireland
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.—(Mr Swire.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 24 November (Standing Order No. 41A).
Business without debate
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European union documents
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ward Closures
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to debate these issues. The national health service is a national treasure. During any one year, all of us will have cause to visit a GP or hospital or to see a nurse, or we have a family member or friend who will do so. Members of my family have devoted years of service to the health service as GPs, a surgeon or nurses. I record my utmost admiration for all those working in the national health service.
The purpose of this debate is to consider the decision-making process in ward closures and other major service changes. I particularly invite the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), to address in her response the lack of consultation over the closure of Ryedale ward at Malton hospital. I regret both the closure and the lack of consultation.
I shall analyse the reasons for closing Ryedale ward at the end of the so-called pilot project and look at the consultation procedure at that stage. I shall highlight the need for services and care provision in a sparsely populated, deeply rural area, with an increasingly ageing population.
People care passionately about their local hospital and greatly value their general practitioner. Thirsk and Malton are well served by three community hospitals—Lambert hospital in Thirsk, St Monica’s in Easingwold and Malton community hospital. In addition, there are acute hospitals at Scarborough and York and Friarage hospital at Northallerton. What increasingly alarms me is the trend over recent months to remove much-needed services from community hospitals, such as the minor injuries units at Lambert hospital and Friary hospital, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Diagnostic services are being removed from Malton hospital, diabetes test strip services are being stopped and there is a rumour that the operating theatre at Malton is due to close within two weeks. Furthermore, there is a threat to decommission all enhanced services in the last quarter of the year—again without consultation.
The local area medical committee has written to the Secretary of State for Health to raise those issues, and particularly to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the threat to decommission enhanced services locally, including chlamydia screening, smoking cessation, complex drug monitoring and other services. The primary care trust held no consultation about the cuts with local practitioners. The committee believes that the cuts are damaging patient care and that they will undermine the strategic aim to provide services at lower unit cost, nearer to patients in the community. The hard work and good will of GPs are being pushed to the limit by the expectation that GPs will absorb more and more cuts and accept an increased work load. There is a threat that the blinkered goal of financial balance and short-termism, following seven years of unchecked cuts, will cause irreparable damage to primary care and leave GP practices damaged and disengaged.
There is a definite pattern in the way that services at community hospitals are being cut without consultation. The Ryedale ward, which was one of two wards at Malton hospital, the other being the Fitzwilliam ward, had 21 beds. It was recently refurbished at a cost of £1.25 million, a quarter of which was raised locally. It opened in May this year. I had cause to visit the refurbished service during my extended election campaign. Patients in Ryedale ward received intensive rehabilitation after a fall or an operation, allowing them to return safely to their home environment.
The ward closure has been termed a pilot scheme, but I am mindful that once a ward has been closed, it is difficult to re-open it. Importantly, the primary care trust in this instance is both the commissioner and the provider of services at Malton hospital. This is most unusual. It is now frowned on as unacceptable and, I understand, is being stopped through the Transforming Community Services agenda.
The way in which the ward was closed is a textbook example of how not to proceed. First, the primary care trust claimed that there was no question of Ryedale ward at Malton hospital closing. Then, after a decision taken on 23 September, the beds were removed from the ward by stealth until there were none remaining and the ward was effectively closed on 19 October. Even at a private meeting with the Health Minister and me on 12 October at the Department of Health, the PCT could still not admit that the ward was closing. Before the closure there had been almost no consultation of the relevant GP practices across the Ryedale area, or of nurses or patients.
Yesterday I lodged a petition with the signatures of more than 1,800 residents of the Ryedale area, strongly objecting to the way that the bed closures had happened without public consultation. I have had a large mailbag from constituents and heard many testimonies of the excellent care that patients received, to their satisfaction and to that of their loved ones, in the Ryedale ward at Malton hospital. The correspondence has been universally against the closure of the ward.
Many local health practitioners are wary of the so-called hospital at home scheme replacing care on a ward. There is deep concern that no advance warning or training was given before the hospital at home scheme was announced as part of the ward closure. Some patients require hospital treatment, although others might prefer to be treated at home. The scheme may lead to patients being admitted as an emergency to an acute ward, which is distressing and more costly than care on a community ward and deeply worrying to patients and their loved ones.
The Ryedale ward should not have closed without the agreement of the health practitioners and the local community. The Secretary of State has received the conclusions of a study of clinical activity on the Ryedale ward to assess whether identified clinical need could be managed effectively at home by the enhanced community support scheme. Those conclusions, which I should like to share with the Minister, are that, on balance, Ryedale should probably have been kept as a 10 to 16-unit, if not a 21-unit, ward for these purposes. There is general concern that the closure of Ryedale ward flouted the conclusions of that study, which I commend to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Minister.
What could the reasons for closure be? Given the predicted deficit in the primary care trust, my fear is that there is a financial motivation behind the recent trend of events and the subsequent lack of consultation. The budgets are being cut so radically that there might be insufficient funds to run all the services by the time that GP commissioning commences in 2012. I accept that there is a funding issue. The current funding allocation to North Yorkshire and York is the 13th lowest of the 152 PCT areas, and 12% below the strategic health authority average. There might be insufficient funds to run all the services at such time as the GP commissioning service commences.
If the trend of service cuts continues, our community hospitals could be reduced to a size where it is no longer viable to keep them open. In a rural area that is sparsely populated, with an increasingly elderly population, access to a local facility or service is key, and the closure or reduction of services could be disastrous. Scarborough hospital and local hospital trusts are deeply frustrated that there is now a local ward free at Malton hospital, currently unused, which could provide beds for patients entrusted to its care.
I welcome the Government’s policy that decisions should be taken locally, but not before the relevant parties have been adequately consulted. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), wrote to me on 25 August to state that the Government have pledged that, in future,
“all service changes must be led by clinicians and patients, and are not to be driven from the top down.”
In that letter, he underlined that
“the Secretary of State for Health has outlined new, strengthened criteria”
to be followed before fundamental service changes take place, and said that they must
“focus on improving patient outcomes…consider patient choice…have support from GP commissioners…and…be based on sound clinical evidence.”
In this case, each and every one of those criteria has been flouted, but I understand that Ministers are powerless to act until the end of the pilot scheme. I urge the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and my hon. Friend to look at reviewing this at the earliest opportunity.
We must ensure that any such fundamental change has the support of all those affected by it. Given that the ward is now closed, it will be harder to reopen it. I cannot see how this is simply a pilot scheme, not a reconfiguration of services. I put it to the House that the decision-making process leading up to the removal of these services was defective and has bypassed those who are most affected by the decisions. Patients must be at the heart of our health care. Local clinicians, doctors, nurses, and patients’ loved ones must support the decisions taken.
Moving forward, where do we want to be at the end of this process? Local people must have confidence in the decision-making process. In the case of the closure of the Ryedale ward, they clearly do not. It is vital that at the end of the so-called pilot scheme, there will be a full, transparent and open consultation. I ask the Minister to outline precisely what form that consultation will take. I urge her to ensure that all those most directly affected will be consulted, including GPs, nurses, Ryedale LINk—local improvement network—Friends of Malton Hospital, and all patients and their loved ones. The primary care trust must desist from the practice of not consulting on any further changes to services. We need to have a proper consultation and better co-ordination of services between the primary care trust and the local hospital trusts.
I welcome the debate, and I hope that the Minister will reassure me that my long-term ambition for the health service, both locally in North Yorkshire and nationally, will be realised and that clinical need will be at the heart of the delivery of health care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. I can fully understand her desire to ensure that the best possible health services exist for her constituents, which came across strongly when she met the Minister of State on 12 October to discuss Malton community hospital.
My hon. Friend is right to say yet again—we say it often, but we cannot say it often enough—that the NHS is a national treasure. It is much loved and much relied upon by all of us, and from my own point of view it was my employer for 25 years. As she rightly stated, patients are at the heart of the service, and need to continue to be. I am sad to say that the story she told this evening is not dissimilar to my experiences in my own constituency, and it shows a big gap: what managers in charge of the finances and commissioners are trying to achieve is very distant from what local people feel.
I wish to say a little about where we are, because I think I can reassure my hon. Friend that our vision of the health service is well aligned with her own. This Government trust professionals in the NHS, and our White Paper, “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS”, is about putting that trust into action and sweeping away the old system, which serves only to hamper and curtail the professional judgment of clinicians. We are replacing politically motivated process targets such as how many people are seen and the length of time they wait, which lump all patients together whatever their ailment, and introducing clinical standards generated by the professionals themselves, to hold them to account for the quality of care and outcomes that they provide. My hon. Friend also referred to the vital importance of professionals leading that process.
The future of local health services will not be dictated from the centre. They will not be directed by strategic health authorities or primary care trusts, they will be designed and commissioned from the bottom up by GPs and their colleagues across the health service, such as clinicians and managers, working in partnership in independent trusts to improve the quality of care. Patients will be armed with unprecedented levels of information and powers of scrutiny, and there will also be input from democratically elected local councillors. That bottom-up approach is important to prevent the present situation from happening again.
Miss McIntosh
What my hon. Friend is saying is music to my ears, but what concerns me is how we have reached a situation in which a major reconfiguration of services has happened without any regard at all to the bottom-up principle.
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I will come to that.
As my hon. Friend stated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has identified four crucial tests that all reconfigurations must now pass. First, they must have the support of GP commissioners. Secondly, there must be arrangements for public and patient engagement—no, I would rather say “involvement”, because “engagement” is not a favourite word of mine. This is about involvement—people being listened to and their voices being heard, which clearly has not happened in the case that she has described. Thirdly, there must be greater clarity about the clinical evidence base underpinning a proposal. Fourthly, proposals must take into account the need to develop and support patient choice. That is a recipe not for maintaining the status quo but for locally agreed, transparent, evidence-based and clinically led change. Decisions about the services at a local hospital will be driven by local clinicians, with the consent and input of patients and local authorities, not imposed or decided behind closed doors.
On Malton community hospital, providing health services in rural areas can be challenging, and I understand that many patients in north Yorkshire have to travel for as long as 45 minutes to reach their nearest large hospital. Local health services can indeed find it difficult to meet national guidelines, particularly those involving clinical mass. I understand that it is against such a challenging backdrop that North Yorkshire and York PCT is currently considering its strategy for health services in Malton and Ryedale, ensuring that they are safe and sustainable for the future.
I am happy for my hon. Friend to come back to me on any points that I may raise. I understand that the PCT’s emerging strategy for future hospital service provision is based on four themes: prompt local access to assessment and treatment for those needing urgent care; local access to a range of rehabilitation services, delivering intensive rehab and support effectively to re-able patients; prompt and local access to diagnostic tests and, where desirable and feasible, minor surgery; and specialist out-patient services to promote access and to support patient management by local GPs.
I am also aware of press speculation that Malton community hospital may be closed. The PCT has made it clear that it sees the hospital as an integral part of local health services and that it has no intention of not having a community hospital in Malton. I do not know whether that will reassure my hon. Friend. Judging by the expression on her face, I fear that it may not.
North Yorkshire and York PCT is currently piloting a scheme of enhanced community service in the Malton and Whitby area. The PCT believes that treating patients closer to home will provide better outcomes and encourage patients to retain their independence. I gather that that pronouncement has been greeted with the same cynicism with which it is greeted in many areas around the country.
Miss McIntosh
No one believes a word that the PCT says any more. There was a cohort of patients—21 at a time—who were treated intensively and given rehabilitation on a ward. They will now not be treated as intensively, and will be less safe when they return home after a fall or a major injury. It is that cohort of patients who will not benefit from hospital at home.
Anne Milton
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. One of the problems is that we will have to let the pilot run. It is using existing hospital staff to provide hospital care in patients’ homes. I gather that there will be no reduction in nursing staff, but delivering care in people’s homes is a very different process from delivering it on a hospital ward. Because of financial constraints, it is not possible to run concurrent hospital and community services, so as part of the pilot, the wards have been temporarily closed. I understand that there will be deep cynicism about the prospect of their ever opening again. However, I am assured by the PCT that this is a pilot, and that a full assessment will be made at the end of it.
The project implementation team meets each week to assess the ongoing impact of the ward closure and bed reductions, and that team includes community provider staff, community hospital matrons and representatives from the community nursing team. I hope that that will continue, and go some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend. The pilot scheme will finish at the end of March 2011, and a full evaluation will take place in April 2011. The PCT has developed criteria for its evaluation—with, I hope, full consultation of local people.
I reiterate that no final decision has been made about the future of Ryedale ward. If the pilot leads to proposals for permanent service changes, the PCT will need to conduct a full public consultation, underpinned by the principles that I have set out. I hope that the PCT may learn a little from this debate, and from the letters that it has doubtless received, and ensure that local people feel that the consultation is real. I understand that the strategic health authority is working closely with the PCT to ensure that proper process is followed.
The need to improve clinical outcomes means that local health services will need to evolve, but I hope that, unlike previous changes, any future changes will have the confidence of local communities and clinicians. People must feel that their voice is properly heard; that is what the new arrangements are about. It will not always be easy, but if the process is clear and transparent, and, crucially, if it is led locally by clinicians, it will have the confidence of local people.
The commitment and tenacity that my hon. Friend shows in fighting for local health services is commendable. I note that she is due to discuss the matter further with the PCT on 19 November. I know that she will continue to work with the local NHS and ensure that her constituents’ voices are properly heard and represented, as she always has done.
The list of enhanced services that my hon. Friend described is particularly significant in the light of the publication of the White Paper. The description of the way in which the ward was closed gives rise to concern and cynicism among local people. It is not useful when organisations act in such a way, because it simply fosters a belief that the PCT is trying to drive something through. We have to let the story run and let the pilot be properly evaluated against the criteria that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has outlined.
Miss McIntosh
I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s full reply from the Dispatch Box. On the particular, indeed unique, point that the PCT is both commissioner and provider of the services, will she give me an assurance that the functions will definitely be separated and that such a position will never arise again? It causes undue confusion for all concerned.
Anne Milton
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issues surrounding the commissioning and provision of services. We have grappled with that for some time and we will fully address it. The consultation on the White Paper that we published in July is now finished, and we need to guard against exactly that sort of problem. If there is no Chinese wall or division between commissioning and provision, cynicism and deep suspicion of the commissioning decisions ensue.
I know that my hon. Friend will continue to make representations and watch the process closely. I assure her that our door will be open to hear any representations that she wants to make.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Culture, Media and Sport
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Griffiths
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer to Question 15057, if he will direct the accounting officer of his Department to examine the appropriateness of the UK Film Council's contract with Portland.
[Official Report, 4 November 2010, Vol. 517, c. 912W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Ed Vaizey:
An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) on 4 November 2010. It has been noted that the reference to APPC has been set out incorrectly.
The original answer was as follows:
Mr Vaizey
The Department has been assured by the UK Film Council (UKFC) that its contract with Portland was appropriate and consistent with Cabinet Office rules.
Portland has advised that it did not carry out any public affairs work for the UKFC, but did assist with media support, and for the purpose of transparency, listed the UKFC on its Advocate Policy and Public Affairs Consulting (APPC) client list.
In light of this clarification, there are no plans for the Department’s Accounting Officer to investigate further the appropriateness of the UK Film Council’s contract with Portland.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Vaizey
The Department has been assured by the UK Film Council (UKFC) that its contract with Portland was appropriate and consistent with Cabinet Office rules.
Portland has advised that it did not carry out any public affairs work for the UKFC, but did assist with media support, and for the purpose of transparency, listed the UKFC on its Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) client list.
In light of this clarification, there are no plans for the Department's Accounting Officer to investigate further the appropriateness of the UK Film Council's contract with Portland.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 8 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
Sheltered Accommodation
(13 years, 8 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
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Mr Chairman. I first wish to thank all Members who have given up their time this morning to debate the very important matter of sheltered housing.
According to the most recent English housing survey, 610,000 mainly older people live in sheltered accommodation. As a sector, sheltered housing has something of a mixed reputation. Some sheltered housing is old and provides bedsit accommodation, which is increasingly hard to let. At its worst, it has provided councils with an opportunity to house hard-to-place tenants—for example, people with drug and alcohol problems—and unsurprisingly that is upsetting for the conventional older tenants for whom the schemes were originally intended. At the other end of the sheltered market there are high-quality flats available for lease purchase and renting. What all those options have in common, however, is the availability of services that are promised as part of the housing entitlement.
I digress for just a minute to remind Members of the next big thing in older people’s accommodation: extra-care homes. Some Members might already have such establishments in their constituencies. My own borough of Dudley is opening several extra-care homes next year. These establishments promise services that tenants and owner-occupiers can avail themselves of on a flexible basis, according to their age, mobility and mental state. The important thing is that the services are available; that is what people will buy into. Although they might not, at first, need a carer to visit them regularly or to have mobility aids in their flat, as they age and their needs change they will be able to access that additional support as part of the package. Does that sound familiar? Although the services offered in extra-care homes are more diverse and far-ranging than those provided by most sheltered housing schemes, the principle is the same. Someone pays the money, and as their needs increase they are guaranteed access to greater support.
On the basis of trends in the sheltered market in recent years, I would say, “Buyer beware.” In sheltered housing, those essential services are being eroded over time. The tenant or leaseholder—this happens in both the private and the social sector—moves into their accommodation on one basis, thinking they will be secure in their old age, only to find that as time goes by the management organisation starts to whittle away the services on which they depend. The distress caused to older tenants and leaseholders by the various changes, in some cases forced upon them by their housing provider, is as great as it is unjust. Several types of service are affected, but the most controversial is warden support.
Research by the Sheltered Housing UK Association found that 97% of residents surveyed said that their decision to move into sheltered housing had been influenced most of all by the presence of a live-in warden. A Help the Aged report, entitled “Nobody’s Listening”, found that 67% of Supporting People administering authorities felt that warden services were the most important aspect of sheltered housing for older residents.
Not everyone agrees. Imogen Parry, director of policy for the Essential Role of Sheltered Housing, which represents housing providers, said that her organisation believes that
“sheltered housing can be provided through a range of models”
—I am sure it can—
“not just through schemes with resident wardens.”
She then quotes from research by Hanover, one of the housing providers:
“Many people neither want nor value 24-hour on-site management services”.
So that will be why tenants in Barnet and Portsmouth have taken their local authorities to court for threatening to move from on-site to floating warden support.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate on this very important issue. Residents in my constituency are equally concerned about losing warden services, but the problem is twofold. The full service is being taken away, leaving only a nine-to-five service, and people are being asked to pay an additional charge when the service was part of the overall package they had when they moved in. They are losing on both counts.
Margot James
I very much agree with the hon. Lady. It is true that elderly people buy into these schemes and originally have an on-site warden service. As she says, not only is that taken away, made off-site and shared by various other housing organisations, but it used to be free and is now chargeable. So, the service is getting worse and the fees are increasing in many cases.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
In Portsmouth, we have an additional problem to the wardens—whom the court case was about—in that bathing and other services are being charged for. This is all happening at once, and many elderly men and women are extremely frightened at the prospect of their bills going up by £20 a week or more.
Margot James
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We must not forget that most of these residents and tenants are on fixed incomes. They have bought into the schemes on one basis, and a promise has been broken. I shall come on a little later to some of the options available to people in that position. Judicial reviews of decisions by housing providers have also been sought by tenants in no fewer than 50 housing schemes in 20 authorities. That gives the lie to the assertion by the housing providers that their residents “neither want nor value” on-site management services.
We are talking about a vulnerable group of people, many of whom are on fixed incomes. Many people in that situation are increasingly frail and are no match for large housing organisations and their teams of lawyers, which is presumably why some companies—charities even, which I find very surprising—have attempted to impose the sort of changes we have heard about this morning on leases and tenancy agreements, without consultation. Although the change that has caused the most distress is the replacement of a live-in warden service with an off-site visiting manager—with whom it is necessary to make an appointment, which is often charged for, even though it was free according to the terms of the original agreement—other changes such as the national procurement of local services and escalating management charges with no associated improvement in the service offered are also a big problem for owner-occupiers in the leasehold sector.
I was first alerted to this problem by two constituents of mine in Stourbridge, who do not wish to be named. They had bought into sheltered accommodation on a leasehold basis. A charity ran the establishment, along with several hundred other establishments nationwide. The charity has substituted the live-in warden service that was free at the point of use with a visiting service shared with other organisations, with which they have to make an appointment and for which they are charged. They have also suffered escalating management charges, and a housing provider that decided to procure nationally every single service. Such a system takes away any local connection and removes the resident’s empowerment and ability to effect improvements by making a phone call or spotting the window cleaner and having a word. Even window cleaning, garden maintenance and lift maintenance are nationally procured, and the excuse given to the residents is that that is under EU law. We have investigated and that is not the case. There is a way round the problem, and EU law does not force national procurement on organisations of that size. Nevertheless, that is what residents are being told.
After I raised the issue during Prime Minister’s questions in July, a family from Folkestone approached me. Their elderly mother was a tenant in an establishment managed by Peverel, which manages a large number of housing organisations country-wide. Again, the issue was the substitution of the live-in warden system. None of the residents wanted that, but Peverel said, “We’re going to sell the flat where the warden lives because we can’t find anyone to do the work. We will donate £10,000 from the proceeds of the sale into your management fund.” That is absolutely derisory, but when the residents challenged it, Peverel turned around and said, “We are under no obligation to do this—take it or leave it.”
Endless complaints appear in the press about Peverel. One of its tactics is to use myriad service organisations of its own, including insurance companies. It then foists the delivery of services by those companies on the residents in its apartments at a charge that is higher than the market rate. That creates a conflict of interest unless there are clear rules of transparency, so that residents can get competitive tenders and ensure that they are not being overcharged for their services.
One gentleman, Neil Healey, managed to take a subsidiary company of Peverel to court over such issues, and he won a case against Solitaire Property Management. Peverel does not exclusively provide sheltered accommodation, and the picture in the paper of Mr Healey shows he is a young man—32 years old. A man of that age is perhaps better equipped to take large housing organisations to court than many of the frail older tenants who are my concern this morning.
A survey by the Bristol older people’s forum showed that more than two thirds of elderly people who live in the Bristol sheltered accommodation sector state that their quality of life is now worse than it was when there was a resident warden. Furthermore, 83% of pensioners in sheltered housing say that the services provided by their council are now worse, and 68% say their quality of life has suffered.
I am pleased to note that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke in support of this cause. Sheltered Housing UK wrote to him a month ago, putting pressure on the Government to introduce rules to ensure that residents and tenants have a right to be consulted when changes to the terms of their leasehold and tenancy agreements are proposed. In response, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote that
“lots of people who move into sheltered housing do expect a 24-hour warden…I rather like the idea Help the Aged has come up with about putting changes to warden services to a vote of affected residents…That’s the kind of good practice I hope more housing associations and councils will use.”
Penny Mordaunt
Certainly in Portsmouth, and I am sure elsewhere, I am concerned that a tactic is being adopted whereby companies that have been taken to court for not consulting people now consult local residents, but still leave them with the bill. In that way they dodge the political bullet for effectively withdrawing the service. I pay tribute to my constituent, Ingrid Savir, who is older than 32 but has been extremely dynamic and has spearheaded the campaign that sued Portsmouth city council.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am most heartened by her example. I stress that many older people are aware of their rights and are determined to push them through. I am delighted to hear about such cases. The problem is that when consultation requires a majority vote—as it should do—a lot of the frailer, more elderly people in the accommodation in question can be leaned on or bullied by the housing association. That is my point.
Let me turn my attention to what can be done about that state of affairs. In the private sector, many tenants have a legally binding service contract. Most sheltered housing providers subscribe to the code of practice for the provision of retirement housing that was established by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers—ARHM. That code makes it incumbent on providers to consult leaseholders about any changes to the terms of the lease. Some charities and housing associations find ways round that code of practice, foisting service charges on to leaseholders without proper consultation, as we have heard this morning.
Leaseholders should be made explicitly aware of their right to consultation under the code of practice, and their recourse to leasehold valuation tribunals should the code be breached. The statutory elements of leaseholders’ rights—such as the right to enfranchise a lease or, as a leaseholder group, to take over the management of services, away from the housing provider—should be extended to charitable organisations and housing trusts.
In my view, such rights should also be extended to the social housing sector. Age UK argues that tenants should be given proper information about the core services offered in their housing scheme, and the terms of reference for any future changes in those services, before they move in to the retirement housing of their choice.
Tenants in sheltered housing provided by local authorities should have a statutory right to be consulted on and challenge local authority decisions that reduce or significantly vary the provision of warden support and other services. Any changes to support services should be voted on by residents, who should have a say in the most appropriate system of alternative support when changes are proposed.
I am grateful for the expertise provided by Age UK and Sheltered Housing UK. Furthermore, my local authority of Dudley—under the recent rating system, it achieved a four-star rating for all its housing services—has proved an excellent support in my constituency for leaseholders in the private sector. I would like to thank Ron Sims and Theresa Kelly for their help with some of the proposals that I put forward this morning.
I look forward to learning more about this issue from the experiences of other hon. Members present for the debate, and I hope that some of the ideas proposed will merit due consideration by the Government.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James). The minute that I saw this debate listed in the Order Paper, I felt that I had to participate. For many years, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) and I have been running a local campaign. We have formed a group called the Thanet eight. It is eight buildings with over 1,500 residents who live in flats that are owned by one company, and were originally managed by the same company—Peverel.
Those residents are by definition not young, and their objective in buying their properties was to have safe, secure and affordable homes, possibly for the rest of their lives. The reality has been different with increased charges; expensive and sometimes unnecessary renovations; a lack of consultation of residents; the attempt to block the creation of active residents associations; a reduction in services, particularly house manager support; and disproportionate penalties if a property is sold or rented.
Age UK has recently raised this matter and completed a very comprehensive report highlighting four key issues that my local residents certainly experience: unfair transfer fees when a property is sold or rented; escalating service charges, compounded by a lack of transparency about what people are paying for; very expensive rents for house manager flats—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge—which do not reflect the market value at all; and the use of companies that are owned by the management companies to undertake work or provide services on behalf of residents.
In particular, I should like the Minister and the Government to examine what I call the vertical integration model. These businesses are being run by subsidiary companies where the group company owns the majority of the companies that provide services to these residential blocks. That throws up very interesting and questionable issues. I hope that those companies’ ownership of that vertically integrated supply chain causes concern to the Office of Fair Trading. The method by which they operate the vertically integrated business model is certainly of concern to consumer groups and, as I said, has been the subject of an Age UK report.
In my experience, the freeholders and management companies, which are all owned by the same holding company, own lift maintenance companies, buildings insurance firms—mentioned by my hon. Friend—building and maintenance operators, window cleaners and internal communications fitters. That might on the surface suggest that such a company knows its business well and understands all the different aspects of running sheltered accommodation, but is that really the case or is the vertical business model precluding competition, reducing choice for residents and creating incentives for the management company to propose and sometimes impose renovations, refurbishments or additional services that residents have not requested and do not desire?
Penny Mordaunt
It is not just the Office of Fair Trading that needs to be concerned. If a lift is not fixed or the night warden is not there, that will lead to potentially massive bills for the public purse. I am thinking of more hospital admissions, more people falling over and so on.
Laura Sandys
I very much welcome that intervention; I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We need to consider the holistic cost—the overall cost—of how in the future we will look after people who are getting older. Many years ago I wrote a paper called “How we keep the new old young”. That will be a big challenge for us. I am referring to how we keep people mobile and independent and ensure that they have the resources to be independent for as long as possible.
I now want to talk about the emotional impact and the worries and concerns of my local residents in Thanet, who have put their life savings into these small flats and do not have other resources. There is an emotional and physical impact from their concern about what will drop through their letterbox next week from the management company telling them that they owe another £1,500. That creates more health problems and anxiety and deters older people from making the independent choice and going for what is, on paper, excellent sheltered accommodation and a structure that gives them security for the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter. The coalition Government are considering the removal of the mobility part of disability living allowance for people in homes. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the removal of such an award puts a financial pressure on people in homes as well? The pressure is not just physical, but financial. Being members of a caring society, as I am sure we all are, does she not agree with me that that would be a backward step?
Laura Sandys
I am talking about sheltered accommodation, not residential care, but I understand that the issue is the component of DLA that relates to mobility. Local authorities do provide those services and need to provide them to ensure greater mobility and as much independent living as possible within a care home. We need to consider carefully how we maintain independence, mobility and active life for as long as possible. I have in my constituency one of the highest percentages of people over 60 in the country. They feel that they can and should participate actively in life, but sometimes and particularly when predatory management companies are involved, they and certainly their resources are put under strain. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I shall give an example of what has happened in my area. Initially, for some of my local buildings, expensive refurbishment projects would be commissioned by the managing agents with the justification of needing to keep the buildings in good condition and ensuring that the residents’ investment was being built on. With no comparative quotes having been produced, those refurbishment projects went ahead, incurring significant additional service charges for the residents. Yes, that was their choice, but it was on the recommendation of someone they trusted—the management agent.
As time has gone on, my local residents have stopped trusting their management agents. They have started to see a pattern as they start to question refurbishment. Now, the management companies are looking to undertake works priced just below the threshold at which they must consult the residents. Over a two-year period, a series of quite similar projects have been priced just below that threshold, so the firms can procure from their own companies at high cost and without consultation of residents. Those costs, which are passed on to residents, total thousands of pounds. The residents are elderly and often on low incomes and have no recourse.
Buildings insurance is also an interesting area. The majority of the buildings in my area that are under management with Peverel have been reinsured in the last four years—not exactly a time when property prices have been rocketing. Those properties have been revalued with increases of between 40 and 60% in the last four years. The insurance company is owned by the holding company of the management company. The premiums have been passed on to the residents. Equivalent quotes obtained by my local residents have brought down the value of the properties in the current market. Some of my residents question whether the building’s value has gone up to support those companies in their market valuation and the presentation of their assets to borrow further money to buy more residential homes.
The vertical integration of these companies, the lack in many instances of competitive tendering and the cumulative cost of small refurbishments that are just under the threshold for consultation make for a very insecure and uncertain future for many residents and must be addressed. Many people from these blocks have taken up the opportunities afforded to them under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, but have the management companies made it easy for the blocks to self-manage? In fact, they have stood in the way of the setting up of residents groups and contested the right to manage, citing numerous barriers. My residents have ended up in tribunals and having to employ experts and lawyers. The law is there to liberate those residents, not to wrap them up in red tape or to place on them the expense of lawyers. All those things have been put in the way to thwart their right to self-manage.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge in the key points that she has put to the Government. I urge the Government to review the regulations on private retirement sector housing and to ensure that the code of conduct is properly enforced. Residents in my constituency should have access to recourse and to the rights enshrined by law. They need the future security that they and their families so deserve.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing this debate on an important national topic. It is important not merely because of the low level of building in this country, but because there is a serious issue about whether residents in sheltered accommodation are being cared for properly. The cases that have been described in this debate illustrate that issue.
The problem is perhaps not as acute in Herefordshire as in some other parts of the country, but it is serious and growing. We have a large elderly population that is increasing as a share of the population, and it includes an increasing number of frail people. Most of those in sheltered accommodation are cared for by Herefordshire Housing, which, after a difficult period a few years ago, has made great progress under its new leadership and reconstituted board. But all too often, sheltered accommodation is used for families who do not require it and to accommodate people with mental illness, who would be better accommodated in specialist dwellings designed for their needs.
The removal of the warden service from sheltered accommodation is a serious local issue, on which I have campaigned for three years. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends on that issue. The warden service is vital, not only for its early-warning service, but for the human touch that it provides for those in sheltered accommodation. There has been more than one case in which a resident has been discovered several days after they have passed away because of the lack of a regular on-site warden.
When the housing stock was transferred from the council to Herefordshire Housing, residents were given strong assurances that their rights, and specifically the warden service, would be protected. There is a general duty of care, under which the warden service is provided. Residents were therefore appalled to discover a couple of years ago that the warden service was being removed.
A very good local campaigning group was set up, called the sheltered housing tenants umbrella group. With my assistance, several members of SHTUG took Herefordshire Housing to court over the removal of the warden service. In particular, I mention Shirley Baldwin, who ran SHTUG at the time, Lil Jones and Nancy Evans, in whose name the group received legal aid to pursue the case. I am sorry to tell hon. Members that the case failed because of a technicality. A statute of limitations, which was very short at some six months, had elapsed and they had neglected to register their concern, in part because they were notified in a modest, non-public way. They had not realised that they had only six months to register their concern, and it was some time before the impact of the withdrawal of the service became clear. Although the lawsuit reached the stage of taking the advice of a silk in London, it did not go through. I am sorry to report that, because those people deserve a better deal than they are getting.
What can be done? Hon. Members have made many good suggestions in this debate and I associate myself with those. I wish to emphasise three aspects. First, there should be more vigorous enforcement of tenants’ rights by statutory agencies. Tenants should not be notified in a letter that arrives among a lot of other correspondence that such rights are being ended without proper negotiation and consultation. Such rights should not be ended in any case because of the commitments that were made at the time of the stock transfer. Tenants deserve better than to have to obtain legal aid, which does not even exist in Herefordshire for such cases. The nearest place from which legal aid can be obtained, and where I found it, is Birmingham.
Secondly, there should be proper treatment of those with mental illness. I have residents who are being driven mad by the difficult behaviour of people who require proper treatment and care. Such people should not be left in sheltered accommodation, but they are because of the general crisis in housing.
Jim Shannon
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) introduced the First Reading of a Bill to protect elderly people and those in care, and to ensure that their rights are preserved. Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent an area with a large proportion of people who are coming up to retirement age—I am probably heading that way myself. Will he look at that Bill, which would go a long way towards providing the protection that he speaks about for the vulnerable people who need it?
Jesse Norman
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I shall look at the proposed legislation with great interest.
My final point is that sheltered housing should be an integral part of a wider attempt to get more housing built in this country. In the past decade, there has been an enormous amount of talk about housing targets, and yet there has been the lowest rate of new housing creation in living memory. The large and increasing number of people who require sheltered accommodation are the losers in that much wider national problem.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for raising a series of important issues with her characteristic sincerity and commitment. She is right that we have a sacred duty to look after the most vulnerable, and in particular those who built Britain, ensuring that they have security and dignity in retirement. No party has a monopoly on wisdom and all Governments, including the previous Government, have to reflect on the consequences of their actions. I will pose a number of questions that I hope the Minister will answer, because the issues that have been raised in this debate are of immense importance.
Everyone here takes seriously the importance of housing and support for elderly and vulnerable people, whether they live in their own home, with their family, or in supported housing, such as sheltered or extra-care schemes. The hon. Lady was right to underline the scale of supported housing in our country. The survey of English housing in 2008 showed that 7% of the retired population lives in sheltered or extra-care housing, with more than 610,000 living in sheltered accommodation. At its best, sheltered accommodation provides a sense of community, companionship and security.
I know that the debate is about more than just wardens, but I will focus for a moment on wardens. I know from my experience in my constituency that the elderly and the vulnerable speak warmly of their wardens. Wardens provide much needed support and they help with tasks, big and small, as well providing invaluable advice and support. Wardens often go that extra mile beyond the call of duty. They organise trips, activities, bingo, singing—I have even been asked to sing in one old people’s home, but I am no Pavarotti. Wardens organise supper nights, and provide a listening ear to their residents who are experiencing ill health or other troubles and need a friend in difficult times.
I have seen some remarkable examples of the good and, I have to say, a very bad example of the bad. Remarkable examples of the good, on the one hand, include Waterford Court, where I was but two weeks ago, celebrating its 10th anniversary. It is full of old soldiers and their wives and husbands, still young at heart. They very much regard themselves as the “wellderly”—the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) was right about that—and are looking forward to years of life ahead in what is an excellent community. Also, New Oscott Village is a shining beacon of what care for elderly people should look like.
On the other hand, bad examples include the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). In my constituency, one old people’s home in Kingstanding moved from on-site wardens, present seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to floating wardens and a call centre. One woman told me, in great distress, of her experience. She had had a mastectomy and at 3 o’clock in the morning on a Saturday night, her wounds burst open. She tried desperately to get help from the call centre, but was told to ring 999. She said, “But I’m soaked with blood from my breasts to my knees.” She could not make any sense of what was happening at the other end of the line and, ultimately, had to call her son, who lived three miles away, to come and get her, at 3 o’clock in the morning, to take her to hospital. Although we celebrate the examples of the outstanding in all constituencies in Britain, what the debate has highlighted is that other examples, to be frank, shame our country.
Among the developments under our own Government was an unhelpful trend in relation to wardens. I will discuss that in a moment, but first let us look at the policy framework, because it is important to where we go from here. In February 2008 the Government published “Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods: A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society”, which set out how sheltered housing is often a positive choice for older people who want to remain independent but who value that little bit of support and shelter, as well as the sense of security and community brought by sheltered housing. The paper said:
“extra care and care homes at their best can be vibrant community hubs, tackling exclusion and promoting active ageing, even if the accommodation itself is dated.”
It also said—the hon. Member for Stourbridge was absolutely right—that consultation and needs assessment are critical both to the effective management of sheltered accommodation and to reflect the wishes of service users. That was emphasised in 2007, in the Supporting People strategy paper, “Independence and Opportunity”. Central to that paper was the importance of keeping service users, in turn, at the heart of delivering housing support.
A report by Help the Aged, “Nobody’s Listening”, makes it clear that changes in support services for sheltered housing and the replacement of resident wardens by alternative service models are not new phenomena—such changes have been taking place for two decades. An independent study commissioned by the Department last year pointed to various reasons why that was the case. It found, on the one hand, that there was less demand for sheltered housing, as people tended to move into sheltered housing later in life, and, on the other hand, that a significant number of sheltered housing residents said that they did not require support services because they were defined as the active elderly. As a result, some administering authorities commissioned flexible mobile support for sheltered housing tenants, based on assessment of support needs. They extended the notion of mobile support. There were strengths in that approach, because it offered support for people in all types of tenure, but, clearly, there were weaknesses as well, because some commissioning authorities, under my party’s Government, clearly got it wrong and went too far in changing the provision of wardens in sheltered accommodation.
I will touch briefly on consultation, which has been powerfully raised, including by the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who has direct personal experience. Consultation is a vital part of any service. My experience is that, if an organisation consults properly with service users, often changes that may not be threatening are seen to be precisely that—not threatening, contentious or frightening. Consultation before changes are made is, therefore, essential. Unfortunately, too many examples of a failure to consult have been evidenced in the debate today, including successful challenges in Portsmouth and Barnet, where there was a lack of consultation, ranging from a failure to take into account the terms of leasehold arrangements to a failure to act in accordance with disability discrimination legislation.
Having acknowledged the trend under the Labour Government whereby some commissioning authorities, for all that their motives were noble, went too far, I shall now look at where we go from here. The debate must take place against the background, inevitably, of resource constraint. As I will say in conclusion, however, what the hon. Member for Stourbridge has done is to put this vital issue at centre stage in the decisions that get made in the next stages by the Government and the commissioning authorities at the sharp end.
The context in which the debate is taking place is that councils will see a 7.1% cut each year for the next four years. Supporting People funding will be cut by 11.5%, to £6 billion. Yes, it is true that an additional £2 billion of funding has been promised to social care by 2014-15, £1 billion of which will come from the NHS, but, set against that, the sheer scale of the cuts that will be made in the field of social care is immense.
We can look at examples of what is already happening in the here and now. Somerset has approved a £3 million cut in its Supporting People programme from April 2011, representing an 18% reduction on its £16.5 million budget allocation for 2010-11. Big cuts have already been made in Isle of Wight; and Cornwall is due to make a decision on, I believe, 30 November on a proposed 40% cut over three years in its overall Supporting People spending. Reports suggest that elsewhere in the country active consideration is being given to major cuts of that kind: Bournemouth, Swindon, North Somerset, Brighton and Hove, and Surrey are all considering proposed reductions of between 20% and 40%. Against that background, and in the spirit of the debate today—so nobly led by the hon. Member for Stourbridge—I would like to put a number of questions to the Minister.
My first question is about preventive support. The evidence is absolutely clear that preventive support—warden services, in particular—leads to better outcomes for service users and their families, as well as to savings in health and social services budgets. If low-level preventive funding, such as Supporting People moneys, is lost, combined with the end of ring-fencing, that is likely to cost the Government and local authorities more.
My second question relates to the redirection of funding. The Supporting People programme funds housing support services for about 1 million people, but as a result of the dramatic consequences of the reductions in expenditure that are being imposed on them, some local authorities are using it to help fund statutory social care. Does the Minister share my concern that that is likely to accelerate significantly the withdrawal of on-site warden arrangements, in favour of what is all too often an unsatisfactory roaming warden service?
My third question is about social care cuts. The initial relief at the provision of an additional £2 billion for social care by 2014-15 has evaporated in the wider context of the 26% cuts in local government revenue spending. As a result of those swingeing cuts to local government, the extra money promised will do nothing to make up for cuts to social care services. Last year, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who at the time was shadowing the Department for Communities and Local Government, said:
“it is important that ending ring-fencing does not become an excuse for phasing out funding or squeezing budgets, and that local councils do not end up getting the blame for what is, in essence, the removal of money by central Government.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 194.]
Does the Minister agree with his colleague?
My fourth question is on a matter about which hon. Members have spoken eloquently. The Sheltered Housing UK Association, a campaign group, recently wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister because he had said in a pre-election interview with Inside Housing that residents should be able to vote on whether to keep a live-in warden. We have heard that the Deputy Prime Minister has made an initial response, but can the Minister tell us whether that excellent proposal is under active consideration?
On my fifth question, the Minister signed early-day motion 60 last year, which expressed concern about reductions in funding for Supporting People services. It called on the then Government to take action to ensure that the vital service of warden-supported housing was retained, because reductions were having a
“detrimental effect upon the quality of life of many vulnerable people who rely on warden-supported housing”.
The Minister will be fully aware that the Government have announced unprecedented cuts to local government funding. What impact will those cuts have on vulnerable people, and particularly the elderly, who rely on local government services? Crucially, have the Government conducted an impact assessment of the effects on social care services of cuts to local government funding? If so, will the Minister publish it?
In conclusion, the debate has raised a number of serious questions about the treatment of residents in housing schemes and about their concerns over the changes that they face. One strength of today’s debate has been that it has celebrated the good, while expressing concern about the bad. There is concern on all sides to ensure that we maintain the support that the elderly and vulnerable are entitled to expect. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge once again for securing the debate, because she is right that this issue is absolutely centre stage in the debate about how we go forward in difficult times. I hope that the Minister will respond to my questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I am very happy to be serving under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Davies. Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) that this has been a very worthwhile debate on an extremely important question, and I thank her very much for bringing it to the House.
My hon. Friend made some strong and effective points about the problems in her constituency. Like other Members who have raised a significant issue in the House, she has had, if not the pleasure, the experience of finding that people all over the country hope that she will become their champion and write to her accordingly. Although I am sure that she will fulfil that role very well, I hope—indeed, I am sure—that she will be able to channel her resources towards dealing with her own constituents. She and other hon. Members raised some really important questions, which I will do my best to address.
It is worth repeating, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) properly said in his balanced critique of what went before, that this matter has come before the House previously. There have been two Adjournment debates in the past 12 months or so, which were initiated by hon. Members with concerns about exactly this issue. The Sheltered Housing UK Association rightly has a strong reputation for getting its point across to right hon. and hon. Members.
Let us go back to where the Government stand on this issue. We are clear that housing needs to be there, and that the support needs of vulnerable and older people should be met wherever they live, whether in their own homes, with their family, in supported or sheltered housing, in the extra-care accommodation mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge—I note her concerns that extra-care homes may be subject in due course to the pressures that she described—or in residential care establishments.
There is a whole range of accommodation. The Government are committed to making sure that people have appropriate accommodation and the support to enable them to live in it. The coalition agreement says:
“people deserve dignity and respect in old age, and…they should be provided with the support they need.”
It also includes a specific commitment on being able to live independently in later life. It says:
“We will help elderly people live at home for longer through solutions such as home adaptations and community support programmes.”
By extension, we will ensure that arrangements are appropriate for people in sheltered accommodation, whether in the private, charitable or public sectors. The Department is looking at how we can help older people to access the practical advice, support and home adaptations that they need to stay in their homes or to move to more appropriate accommodation. We are working with developers and planners to facilitate a wider range of high-quality housing options for older people.
At the heart of what the previous Government did, and what we are continuing to do, is the Supporting People programme. The programme has been protected as far as possible in the spending review. As part of the review, we have secured £6.5 billion for Supporting People over the next four years. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington is not wrong to say that the finances are under extreme pressure or that there will be pressures on local authorities and providers, but I want him to understand that the sum being spent on Supporting People—it will be £1.6 billion this year—will still be £1.59 billion by 2015, which represents an overall reduction of just £46 million over the four years. That shows that we have a very strong commitment, in straitened times and circumstances, to ensuring that the Supporting People programme has the resources that it needs and that front-line services for vulnerable people, including residents of sheltered housing, are protected.
Figures are a little hard to come by, but something like £180 million out of the Supporting People programme goes to support for people in sheltered accommodation at present and, by everyone’s account, that is doing a good job. Hon. Members have rightly focused on the sector’s problems, and I want to discuss those in a minute, but let us not forget that there are 600,000 older people in sheltered accommodation, the huge majority of whom are happy and comfortable there and, in the traditional phrase, would not be anywhere else.
How will the Government approach the matter? We have said clearly and strongly that we believe that local authorities are best placed to identify services to meet the needs and balance the priorities in their communities. It is for local authorities to decide how best to design and commission the services that they believe are needed by all parts of the community, and to arrange for and deliver them—or enable them to be provided, perhaps by work with third sector and private sector providers. Central Government do not dictate to local authorities or service providers the details of what local services to provide or how to do it, and we do not want to be in the business of micro-managing service delivery.
Jack Dromey
Have central Government conducted a study of the impact on elderly and vulnerable people of the reductions in expenditure that have been announced?
Andrew Stunell
That is primarily a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health. I am happy to follow it up and to write to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members about progress in that respect. We should be quite clear: the Supporting People programme is non-statutory and has always been non-ring-fenced. That has allowed local authorities to draw money into it when they thought it necessary, and to use Supporting People money imaginatively and innovatively to provide good services by bolstering and reinforcing those they already had. It was never a ring-fenced fund and it still is not, and it does not cover a specific statutory duty, but I am happy to follow up on that point by writing to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
Later this month we will publish a localism Bill to devolve greater powers to councils and to neighbourhoods and local communities. It will return to them control over housing and planning decisions and will help to set the foundation for transforming the relationship between central Government, local government, communities and individuals. The philosophy behind the Bill includes the engagement and participation of residents and communities. Several hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to the fact that in some cases providers of sheltered housing appear deliberately to have sought to frustrate or bypass such consultation and engagement. The Government regret the fact that that happens and would want it to be challenged whenever it does.
Jack Dromey
Does that mean that the Government intend to honour the pledge given by the Deputy Prime Minister that residents of sheltered accommodation will have the right to vote on whether wardens are withdrawn?
Andrew Stunell
The hon. Gentleman is skilfully gliding over what he said to the House only about 10 minutes ago, which is that the Deputy Prime Minister favoured that approach; he did not give a pledge to introduce legislation, and I am certainly not going to do so. The hon. Gentleman has perhaps slightly gone beyond his very temperate approach, by trying to weave into it something that is not the case.
The localism Bill reforms, taken together, will shift power from the central state back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. They will give local people, including community groups and residents associations—and why not groups of sheltered housing residents too—more power over local government and how public money is spent in their area, and will ensure that councillors are more directly accountable to them. They will free local government from central control so that it can ensure that services are delivered according to local needs; and they will let local people drive change through a renewal of confidence in a streamlined, more efficient planning system, encouraging them to get actively involved in planning, housing and local services.
Before I return to the matter of sheltered accommodation I should perhaps mention that I probably got slightly carried away before in saying that Supporting People was never ring-fenced, as it was ring-fenced initially but the previous Government de-ring-fenced it and we have continued with that.
Sheltered accommodation, as has been mentioned, has been evolving for decades. Perhaps 30 years ago the model was somewhat institutional, and there is a hangover from that in accommodation that is really just bedsits with oversight. A decade or so ago, local authorities, including my own, went through an elaborate and sometimes painful process of upgrading their sheltered accommodation. The Help the Aged campaign report, “Nobody’s Listening”, which was published about 18 months ago, charted that progress. Part of the evolution of the way that care is provided has been a move to so-called floating support services. The reasons for that are, first, the changes in demand for sheltered housing, which have been alluded to in the debate; secondly, the fact that the standard of much sheltered accommodation is in need of improvement, which requires investment; and, thirdly, the fact that significant numbers of sheltered housing residents do not require support services. They are the “wellderly” or “active elderly”, or are described in other such phraseology. I was interested to hear about the paper entitled “How we keep the new old young” by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), and I congratulate her on her practical work.
Other factors are driving changes in the way that services are delivered, including the difficulty in recruiting resident wardens, which can be quite acute and has inhibited schemes in some places. The European working time directive somewhat constrains the hours that wardens work, so that sometimes a 24-hour live-in warden is not, in practice, as one might suppose, on duty for 24 hours seven days a week. Those are the practical realities that must be faced, alongside the direct financial constraints.
My Department receives correspondence from residents of sheltered housing complaining about issues such as being required to pay for services that they do not want. By a twist of fate, it falls to me to answer this debate at a time when I am in active correspondence with one of my groups of sheltered housing residents; they are campaigning against a 24-hour residential service, as they believe that it would not be good value for money or helpful. Perhaps the irony is completed by saying that the organisation that they are campaigning against is Peverel, which insists that they must have residential wardens. We live in a complex world where black is not always black and white is not always white.
Sheltered housing, like all other support services, cannot be immune from the wider demographic, technological and economic challenges and opportunities that we face. We need to encourage innovative ways of caring for and supporting people, so that solutions are more personalised and make the most of emerging technology. There are various ways of doing that, and it does not have to involve bad stories about call centres.
Telecare can bring substantial benefits. It can assist people to remain in their own homes, and it can reduce inappropriate admissions to hospital—although judging by the story recounted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, that is not always the case. It can also provide cover to allow for early discharge from hospital and advance warning of deterioration in a person’s condition.
Local authorities are rightly responding to the changes in this market—although market may not be the appropriate word—in care provision. The resources available for housing-related support services are being carefully investigated at the local level, which means that local authorities are reviewing the services that they commission.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington that local authorities sometimes get it wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said that 50 legal challenges are being made against 20 local authorities; and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said that that number might be bigger but for the legal barriers and hurdles that people had to surmount. Notwithstanding that, we should recognise that the majority of local authorities are getting on with the job. They are extending mobile support to older people in accommodation in the community, and the Supporting People programme gives them the flexibility to be innovative. Supporting People is tenure-neutral; it can be used to support people in private and charitable accommodation, and in third-sector and social housing. That is important.
What about consultation? Changes to housing-related support services should be designed to meet the assessed needs of service users, and changes to service delivery should take account of those people’s views, with proper engagement and consultation with those affected. There are well established ways of doing that.
The Centre for Housing Support has been active in identifying and sharing good practice. In addition to its code, it works in partnership with TPAS, the Tenant Participation Advisory Service. It has provided deliverers of service with its publication, “Effective Resident Involvement and Consultation in Sheltered Housing: A Good Practice Guide for Providers and Commissioners”. That is the textbook that I would want all providers to use when delivering those change processes. The code highlights the importance of the genuine involvement and engagement of service users—the people who live in the homes, the householders. Indeed, I am not sure that the phrase “service users” quite captures how important the home is to the people who live there.
Change is inevitable. Providers and commissioners need to be aware that, in preparing and reacting to change, they should involve the users of their service. They must ensure not only that the users are happy but that the changes are appropriate and that value-for-money services can be developed. The TPAS report addresses the barriers to effective engagement, and gives a number of case studies and examples of good practice.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge, for South Thanet and for Hereford and South Herefordshire and others have drawn attention to cases where that engagement is not happening. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet was eloquent in her critique of what she called the vertical integration of services provided by a particular company. It would not be appropriate for me to say a great deal about the specifics of that case, but I know that various residents’ groups have approached the Office of Fair Trading on some of those matters. We should await the outcome, and a response, before commenting further. However, if issues of substance need to be addressed in relation to private provision, the Government would obviously want to take serious account of the evidence.
When developing and commissioning services, it is important that local authorities should take account of the views and experiences not only of residents but of best practice around the country. Consultation and needs assessment are critical factors in ensuring that changes in service are well managed and reflect the wishes of users, as well as enabling local authorities to meet the needs of all service users and give them value for money.
The importance of needs assessment and consultation with service users are built into the quality assessment framework for the Supporting People programme. The QAF was introduced in 2003, and it set out the standards that are expected in the delivery of Supporting People services. It also identified methods of producing evidence of achievement. Over the past five years, it has been a successful practical tool for ensuring continuous improvement in service delivery, especially for housing-related support.
The QAF was reviewed in 2008, after running for five years, to bring it up to date and to emphasise the need for high-quality individually focused services that aim to improve the outcomes for service users. The majority of administering authorities—local authorities with responsibility for the framework—continue to use it today. Evidence shows that other local authority services, such as adult social care, have adopted the QAF as the standard tool to measure the quality of services being delivered.
We welcome the fact that we are moving away from the centrally driven, target-directed delivery of local services. It is good to see that a tool is available to administering authorities—social services authorities and others—to allow them to monitor themselves, to ensure that they are accountable to those for whom the services are provided and that their services are delivered to a good standard.
The sheltered housing sector has an independent code of practice. It was developed in consultation with practitioners and service users, and is administered by the Centre for Housing Support. That code was devised back in 1993, and its standards have been continually refined and adapted. It is a way of passporting through the QAF and was the first independent code to receive such an endorsement. The code focuses on outcomes rather than processes—not on how one gets there, exactly, but whether the service is good and whether people are happy with it. It encourages providers to create local solutions better to meet and serve the needs of the community.
I have attempted to respond to the various questions raised during the debate. The Government take seriously the matters that were rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, which were strongly underlined and reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, backed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and mentioned in a number of interventions. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, there is scope for improvement. It is not the case that the previous Government had a monopoly of wisdom on this issue, although I imagine that the hon. Gentleman would say that neither do the present Government. There is work to do and progress to be made, and it is a key issue. I hope that I have been able to show the House that the Government take the problem seriously and will be listening hard over the coming months to ensure that residents of sheltered housing get the service for which they have paid and which they thoroughly deserve.
Commercial Property
(13 years, 8 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
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Before making my remarks, I first declare an interest as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to draw attention to the position faced by a constituent of mine, Mr Peter Summers, who visited my surgery a few weeks ago. For many years, Mr Summers operated a business supplying tyres from an industrial unit he had purchased. At 67, he sold his business but retained the premises, and invested in a personal pension fund. He spent some money refurbishing the building, and let it in 2005 at an annual rental of £35,000. In 2008, the tenant occupying the building went into liquidation and vacated the premises, leaving Mr Summers with some arrears and reinstatement costs of some £3,500, but since then he has been unable to find a new tenant.
In respect of the liability to business rates, Mr Summers enjoyed a period of transition for the first six months, from April 2008 to September 2008, but since then he has incurred a significant sum in business rates. In the six-month period from 30 September 2008 to 1 April 2009, he paid £8,628. For 2009-10, he paid full-year rates of £18,066, and for the current year he has paid £16,071. Over that period of two and a half years, during which he has received no services, his total expenditure has been £42,776. At a time when Mr Summers might have expected to contribute £35,000 a year to his pension fund, he has paid net outgoings of £18,000 a year, a difference of £53,000 per annum.
People such as Mr Summers recognise, in holding commercial property as an investment, that by virtue of the economic cycle, which can go up and down, there will be times when such a property may be vacant and there will be no income. Most investors in property must live with that fact. Mr Summers is prepared to live with it, but it strikes me as unfair that in addition to the loss of rental income, he must now bear a further loss in paying business rates when he cannot meet the sum from his income. He is effectively paying for services he is not receiving. He now faces the prospect of selling his industrial unit in a distressed market where prices have been forced down. The downward pressure has been caused partly by other investors’ concern that if they buy the property, they will be liable for the vacant business rate. Mr Summers came to see me to ask for my support in lobbying the Minister to rectify the position, which I believe is inherently unfair. I advised him that I was happy to do so.
The situation arose in consequence of a change to empty property rate relief that took effect in April 2008. For decades until then, the Government had helped struggling businesses through empty property rate relief. Shops and offices received an allowance of 100% relief initially and 50% thereafter, and owners of empty factories and warehouses received a 100% permanent exemption. The Government’s intention in reducing empty property rate relief was to provide incentives to bring vacant premises into use by encouraging rents downward. The change was intended to encourage property owners to re-let, redevelop or sell empty non-domestic buildings and improve competitiveness for all businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, in terms of property costs.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I declare an interest as outlined in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Has my hon. Friend found, as I have, that the changes, combined with the difficult market conditions, mean that speculative development of office or manufacturing property has stopped? Many small manufacturing businesses are concerned about expanding or taking on extra premises, because if the market weakens, they might end up paying rates on empty properties.
Mark Pawsey
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I will make that point later in my remarks.
On the Government’s original intentions, they recognised some difficulty with the proposals, and the position was changed slightly in the November 2008 Budget report to exempt from business rates commercial and industrial properties with a rateable value of less than £15,000. Regrettably, that is below the value of Mr Summers’s property.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I discussed the repercussions of the change with the previous Government on many occasions. I think that the level is £18,000 now, but in Solihull one cannot rent a broom cupboard for rates of £18,000 a year, as I know to my cost. I criticise the previous Government tremendously for the repercussions. I have constituents in Birmingham who are trying to rent out property for £1 a square foot just to absolve themselves of their problems with the rates. Will my hon. Friend exhort the Minister to consider whether, in this current economic climate, some form of marginal relief might be possible, just for the time being?
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that interventions, particularly in a half-hour debate, should be as short as possible.
Mark Pawsey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. I know that even in areas where rents have been reduced to the level that she mentioned, there are still no takers. If no businesses are willing to take the premises, the price is irrelevant. We know that the situation must change.
The regulations have been in force for more than two years and have had a number of effects, some of which the property industry expected and warned the Government about at the time of the change. On the failure to provide services, it can be argued in the interest of fairness that business rates are a tax on occupation with the intention of raising funds, in the same way as the council tax. However, clearly, if a property is not occupied, no services are being consumed, and it follows quite reasonably that no tax should be payable.
In many cases, the tax has become a tax on ownership rather than a tax on an income stream. Taxes are usually based on income streams, which means that they can be paid from profits earned. Again, where a commercial property is vacant, there is no income stream on which that tax can be levied.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an important and compelling case. Does he agree that the imposition of non-domestic rates on vacant commercial premises has led to an increase in the demolition of serviceable commercial premises and in the number of derelict sites blighting our towns?
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine, is entirely right. There have been unforeseen consequences, one of which is that it is more sensible for property owners to develop a property rather than retain it for future use.
The rates are almost a form of wealth tax, levied on ownership of an asset rather than the income derived from it, as was originally intended. In times of recession, many small businesses find themselves occupying properties too large for their immediate needs and look for a tenant to take their surplus space. Where they do so, the rents add to their income and the occupier of the business becomes liable for the business rate, but if they cannot find a tenant, they face the burden of further business rates. For most businesses, business rates make up their third biggest item of expenditure, after wages and rents. Also, business rates are a fixed cost. They do not decrease as turnover declines during recessionary times. I am concerned that in many cases, excessive bills are contributing to business failures and leading to higher unemployment.
A further unfairness is that it often takes a long time to find a tenant for vacant commercial property, a fact reflected in the time limit allowed for the non-application of rates. Even in boom times, an industrial property is likely to remain vacant for between 12 and 18 months. In the current economic climate, the loss of a tenant will almost certainly mean additional liability for business rates that might not have been budgeted for.
The effect on rental values has not been what the Government intended. They hoped that rental values would fall, but an April 2009 report by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggested that that objective had not been achieved and that property owners were offering other incentives instead, such as rent-free periods. There has also been a detrimental effect on capital values. The same report found that because empty property rates make fewer investors willing to enter the market, investment levels in the sector have fallen.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The point about property values is important. In my constituency, responsible landlords have found themselves unable to proceed with property refurbishments and renewal work because they are paying rates on empty properties in other parts of the same area. The rates have a knock-on effect on the quality of the offer in towns such as Llandudno in my constituency.
Mark Pawsey
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution; he makes a very good point. The hope that the application of empty business rates would encourage the property owner to accept lower rents in order to keep their buildings occupied, and that it would support businesses in the economy generally, has not been realised. There is a parallel here with the position taken by Opposition parties in respect of welfare reforms. The Opposition say that there is no point in trying to force people to take jobs because there are no jobs available. Similarly, there is no point in trying to force landlords to let commercial property cheaply if there are simply no occupiers to take up the space. There are absolutely no incentives for property owners to keep their buildings empty and not be active in seeking occupiers. In the case of Mr Summers, his failure over the past two and a half years to find a tenant has not been for the want of trying.
As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), one way in which property owners can avoid their liability for empty property rates is simply to demolish the property—if there is no building, there is no business rate. The RICS survey shows that the application of vacant property taxes is currently the strongest single factor in determining which buildings are demolished. It is often the older, less attractive properties for which, in times of recession such as now, it is more difficult to find a tenant. However, in most cases such properties are perfectly sound, usable buildings. An unintended consequence of the 2008 changes is that much of such low-cost industrial accommodation will no longer be available. Just as the country starts to emerge from recession, the start-up businesses that will be so important to our future prosperity will not be able to find any premises to operate from.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) mentioned, given the anxiety of completing a building, not being able to find a tenant and thus becoming liable for empty property rates, it is absolutely no surprise to find that property development companies are no longer developing commercial property on a speculative basis.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. During the past couple of years in Liverpool and Merseyside, there has been considerable regeneration both as a result of speculative build and because people really wanted to put their heart into the city to develop and grow it. The tax on empty properties has stopped that process in its tracks because people wanted to look for secondary investors while developing inner-city areas.
Mark Pawsey
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Clearly the redevelopment and stimulation of our town centres has been brought to a halt by this legislation, which has made that process much more difficult. Commercial property development companies are no longer building property speculatively—by which I mean property being built in the expectation of finding someone to occupy it, rather than having an occupier already in place. No new building has taken place and nothing has been left in the pipeline for later. Again, as the country emerges from recession, the consequence of that is that the accommodation needed by our businesses will still be in the form of paper plans, rather than completed buildings.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I declare an interest in line with the declaration of Members’ interests. Business rates are undoubtedly a tax. When a building is empty, there is no rent. The crux of the matter is that this is a tax on an asset that has no income. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that is distorting the property market and leading people to make strange decisions. The cheaper properties at the bottom end of the market being used by start-up companies will be the first to be demolished.
Mark Pawsey
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. That point has been well made. Many years ago, I recall setting up my own business and occupying exactly the kind of property that would, by now, have been demolished. In my business’s early days, secondary, inexpensive space permitted it to get started with relatively low overheads.
In addition to demolishing existing building, we will end up with no new building. My concern is that, as we emerge from recession, there will be no new industrial units for our businesses to occupy as they grow. That will have a significant effect in delaying our country’s ability to emerge from the current recession. I am particularly concerned about the plight of small businesses and small private investors.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
For the record, I would also like to declare an interest in accordance with the register. Is the localism agenda not part of the solution, in that it should be up to local authorities individually to decide what should be charged and what percentage of relief should be given? That would reflect market conditions in different parts of the country.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I am sure will be taken up by the Minister in his response. We are moving into an era of localism and it should be appropriate for individual authorities to make their own decisions on the matter, rather than having legislation imposed on them from on high.
Returning to the case of Mr Summers, the position of small private investors and small businesses contrasts significantly with that of larger, more established property companies that can absorb this cost in the round and are better able to respond. Of course, the business community fully accepts that the coalition Government need to take decisive action to deal with the country’s deficit, and that any proposals such as those articulated by my hon. Friends this morning need to stand up against many other calls on the public finances at this difficult time. However, I contend that the consequences of the abolition of empty property rate relief on a significant proportion of the country’s commercial property estate means that the matter should be given urgent and special attention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
May I start by saying what a particular pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies? I wish you well in this new elevation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate. It is an important topic and he put his case very cogently. I also thank hon. Members who intervened for the various points they made. The Government are alert to those points and want to take them on board, subject, of course, to the circumstances I shall set out briefly.
As I said, this is a very important matter, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn hon. Members’ attention to it because he has given me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on business rates and the issues surrounding empty property relief. An important thread in my hon. Friend’s comments that I endorse is the importance of the private sector. The Government fully recognise that the private sector is the driver of economic growth. That is why we are committed to rebalancing the economy and supporting business to provide the growth in jobs that the country needs.
Indeed, the Prime Minister’s announcement at the start of this month set out the Government’s plans to help small and medium-sized businesses to flourish and to encourage entrepreneurs. He has appointed Lord Young as his enterprise adviser and asked him to write a brutally honest report on what we, as a Government, can do to help smaller enterprises and start-ups, as mentioned in the debate, to prosper. Business rates are an important consideration, along with several others that I am sure my hon. Friends will appreciate the Government also want to address.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the Minister agree that the lack of Opposition interest in today’s debate reflects the callous indifference of the previous Government to the plight of the small business man in the UK?
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend has stolen one of my lines. I appear to have lost any form of shadow. It is interesting indeed—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. We ought to reflect that, in a half-hour debate, one would not necessarily expect anyone from the shadow ministerial team or, indeed, any other Member to be present.
Robert Neill
I understand that, Mr Davies, but there are criticisms of the previous Government’s approach that I intend to make, and it is interesting that it is coalition Members who have attended to support the interests of businesses.
The Government, recognising the difficulties that we inherited when we came to power, have done much to support business. In the June Budget, we announced that we would reduce both the main rate and the small profits rate for corporation tax, which is another major outgoing; increase the threshold for employer national insurance contributions; and reduce employer national insurance contributions for new businesses in targeted areas.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
On that point, does the Minister agree with me that if we used the national insurance holiday money to allow flexibility in the business rates for start-ups, we might see new businesses start up and new job creation?
Robert Neill
That is an interesting suggestion that I will take away. As I will say later in my speech, we intend to give a great deal of thought to finding ways forward.
We have also increased the enterprise finance guarantee, created a new growth capital fund and set up a regional growth fund. All those measures taken in the Budget set out the broader picture. We have also taken important action on business rates. In the Budget, we announced our intention to waive £175 million of backdated business rates demanded of businesses, including some, although not exclusively, in ports. Thanks to that action, many companies across the country, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, can now move forward confidently, unburdened by those unexpected debts. We will introduce the necessary legislation to achieve that in the localism Bill.
We also took action in the Budget to help small businesses through the business rates system. We are well aware that small businesses provide nearly 60% of our jobs and half of our GDP. We recognised the need to inject new life into that part of the private sector, so that enterprise can drive recovery. We therefore doubled the level of small business rate relief for one year—a measure that is currently saving approximately 500,000 businesses £390 million in taxes. More than a third of a million ratepayers will pay no rates at all for that year.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate. Does the Minister accept that business rates have a disproportionate effect on smaller business, which is demonstrated by the rate relief scheme? I accept the generosity of the rate relief scheme that has been offered, but does he not acknowledge its short-term nature? Businesses need to be able to plan over the longer term.
Robert Neill
I accept that the measures we have taken are for a targeted and limited period, but they are within the resources available to us, given the economic circumstances we inherited. There are longer-term plans, which I will discuss in a moment. My hon. Friend is right that we need to plan more comprehensively for the longer term in this regard, but it is worth noting that those two measures alone amount to more than £500 million of targeted support for more than 500,000 ratepayers to assist businesses in the current climate.
I would like to mention three other proposals on business rates that are aimed at supporting business and local authorities. First, we will ensure that all future business rates supplement projects, when they fund both more or less than one third of an overall project, will be put to the ballot, so that liable businesses can decide whether to impose the business rate supplement upon themselves. Liable businesses will therefore be able to vote for, and in effect approve, the planned economic development project that they will be funding. That was not available when the business rate supplement scheme was introduced by the previous Government. We think that it is right to ensure that there is only taxation with representation for small businesses in those circumstances.
Secondly, as announced in the coalition agreement, we are committed to finding a practical way to make small business rate relief automatic. We are determined to end that needless red tape that business faces and ensure that ratepayers get all the relief to which they are entitled, and I hope to be able to give hon. Members more details of that before too long. Finally, the Conservative party manifesto proposed that local authorities should be given new powers to introduce further discounts on business rates so that local authorities can respond to local circumstances by reducing business rates bills. The coalition Government are currently considering the scope of such powers. Again, I hope to be able to say something on that before too long.
I would also like to take the opportunity to set out our plans for the local government resource review, which will enable us to look at those longer-term, across-the-piece plans for business rates. We are committed to providing incentives for local authorities to promote economic growth through the business rates system. We outlined our proposals to enable councils to retain locally-raised business rates in the local growth White Paper. The philosophy of that White Paper recognises the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) made in his intervention on the advantage of giving greater local power in the setting of those rates. The proposals are designed to devolve exactly those sorts of freedoms and responsibilities to the local level as part of our decentralisation agenda.
We propose to take the work forward through the local government resource review starting in January, but I would like to reassure Members that that review will ensure that appropriate protections are put in place for businesses. We are clear that businesses should not be subject to locally imposed increases in the burden of taxation. We have made it clear that businesses would have the right to hold a binding vote on any supplementary business rates, as I have already said. A much more significant piece of work on business rates will come along in the new year.
Turning to empty property rates, we recognise that property taxes, in the form of business rates, are among the highest in Europe, and businesses would like us to do more to reduce that burden, which impacts on their growth and investment decisions. Nowhere is that more true than in relation to empty property rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby set out extremely clearly the problems caused by the previous Government’s reforms of empty property rates—problems that we fully recognise. I assure him that the present Government have tremendous sympathy with the position that his constituent, Mr Summers, finds himself in.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, from 2008-09 the exemption periods were restricted to three months for non-industrial property and six months for industrial property, with ratepayers being liable for full rates once the exemption period has lapsed. As he also pointed out, it is true that the previous Government claimed that the purpose of the reforms was to increase the costs of holding empty property, as a way of encouraging owners of commercial property to re-let, redevelop or sell empty properties—or so it was postulated. That argument was based on an economic theory that was not, and is not, fully accepted by the business community or by many Members of this House. The previous Government also estimated that the change would increase net tax yield by £950m.
Faced almost immediately after the introduction of the reforms with deteriorating economic conditions, the previous Government recognised, perhaps surprisingly, that the reforms made things more difficult for owners of commercial property. That is why they introduced the temporary £18,000 rateable value threshold, below which empty property was exempt from business rates. As Members will be well aware, that threshold is due to revert automatically to £2,600 on 1 April 2011.
The economy is coming out of recession and growing again, thanks to this Government’s policies. That should improve prospects for landlords seeking tenants for empty properties, but we recognise that ratepayers would like us to undo the previous Government’s changes or to continue with the temporary measure. We fully understand and appreciate that view; the difficulty is that our ability to take action on the reforms must be balanced against the high costs involved, the targeted support on business rates that we have already provided, and the overriding need, as my hon. Friend recognised, to reduce public expenditure and support the economy by reducing the deficit.
I assure my hon. Friend that we most definitely recognise the problems caused by the previous Government’s unfair changes. We will certainly keep the matter under review in the light of the work that we propose to undertake, and we will keep in mind the position of Mr Summers and others like him. We want to work constructively with the property industry on this inherited problem that we are trying to sort out, and to take appropriate action as and when our national finances allow. I hope that the major actions that we have already taken on business rates and those that we will be taking through the localism Bill demonstrate our commitment to providing targeted support to businesses through the business rates system. I thank my hon. Friend again for raising the matter.
Flooding (West Cumbria)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
It seems rather appropriate to have this debate on a day when floods have hit Cornwall. It is nice to see so many Cumbrian colleagues in attendance. I thought I would begin by doing something that I think is appropriate. On the day of the floods we lost a very brave police officer who undoubtedly saved many lives; he left a wife and four children. We then had a terrible bus crash, in which two young people and the driver lost their lives. On top of that, we had the terrible horrors of the shootings that took place not too long ago in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). I therefore ask Members to stand with me in silence for a few moments to commemorate those losses.
A period of silence was observed.
Tony Cunningham
I thank hon. Members. The families and friends of those who lost their lives and the entire community of west Cumbria will have greatly appreciated that.
My memories of the floods are almost surreal. I had already spoken with the Environment Agency when river levels were rising, but when I walked into my local in Workington, the Green Dragon, everyone gathered there was, unusually, glued to the television screen, watching with incredulity. They could not believe what they were seeing: lifeboats on the main street of a small market town, and floods that, at their height, were eight or nine feet high. At one stage, the lifeboats could not be launched because of the speed of the river. I rang the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who had just got back from Brazil. He agreed to come up, and the following morning I was standing with him on the market place in Cockermouth, just off the main street, and the water around us was still very high. All we could hear were helicopters, and there was a bright yellow RAF helicopter winching someone to safety.
The phrase I used in my first television interview after the floods was not mine. While my right hon. Friend was being interviewed, I turned to someone from the town and said, “This is just unbelievable.” He replied, “Yeah, Tony, it’s like something out of the Bible.” The Sky television interviewer then asked me how I would describe the floods, and I immediately said that they were of biblical proportions. That was copied and echoed by many newspapers and so on, and people said that I was clever to think of it, but the words were those of a constituent who just happened to be standing next to me.
On that first day, we got in touch with Cumbria Community Foundation and launched an appeal. The nuclear industry in particular was extremely generous, giving tens of thousands of pounds to start it off. Cockermouth, Workington and Keswick are relatively small towns, but we raised about £2.5 million in that appeal, which says everything about the generosity of west Cumbrians, of Cumbrians and of the rest of the country. In fact, donations came in from other parts of the world.
The real heroes in the early days were the emergency services. What I am about to say I say not in anger, but in sadness. The police were absolutely superb in those early days, and yet today they are facing 20% cuts. The police community support officers who did such a fantastic job are now threatened with redundancy, and I understand that the number of local neighbourhood policing teams is to be cut from 21 to 10.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about our local police. Like me, he spends a lot of time speaking with members of the police force, including PCSOs. After the year they have been through, how do they feel they are being treated at the moment?
Tony Cunningham
They feel let down, is the honest answer. I recently received a letter from a PCSO in one of the towns I represent—I will not mention which one—who made just that point. She said, “When the community needed us, we were there. We now need the state, the county council or whatever to help and support us. I hope they will be there for us.”
Turning to the ambulance service, there was recently a vote of no confidence by nurses in both the West Cumberland hospital and Carlisle hospital in the local trust because of cuts, changes to working patterns and so on. They did an incredible job, and not only during the floods. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland was there for the people he represents after the shootings in his constituency, and we can only imagine what it must have been like for those nurses having to deal with that. In such small communities, the victims were often people they knew, and gunshot wounds, as we know, are particularly horrific. Yet this is where they are now.
With regard to the fire brigade, I would like to ask the Minister to respond to a quote from the Pitt report, which states:
“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned”
as a necessity
“by a statutory duty.”
That recommendation was published in 2007, and I wonder where we are now. I talked with my local fire officers just a couple of hours ago. The centre where gold command worked during the floods was in Cockermouth, in the fire and rescue service headquarters. That is now going. The service has been offered either a relocation to Penrith, with a reduced number of staff, or outsourcing, which means they would all go. They co-ordinated the entire rescue, with the police, the coastguard and everything else, but that is what they tell me is happening to them.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I sympathise very much with the hon. Gentleman’s points. He listed the three professional emergency services that played such a crucial role a year ago, as they have done many times since. He may be coming to this point, but for many of us in Cumbria there is a fourth emergency service: the mountain rescue teams. His party’s Government refused to give back the VAT and vehicle excise duty that those teams have to pay from their voluntary donations. The present Government have made sympathetic noises about that. Will he join me and other Members in pressing the Government to release what is a relatively small amount of money to give those teams not only a financial boost, but the formal endorsement that we, the community, recognise the value of their work?
Tony Cunningham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and congratulate him—or perhaps offer my commiserations—on becoming president of his party. It is a great honour for him and for the county, so well done.
The hon. Gentleman can have a look at my speech notes, if he wants, but the next two words on the page are “mountain rescue”. Cockermouth mountain rescue team, in particular, gave immense help. It is unusual for people in my position to apologise, but I will, because we should have done as he suggests and exempted mountain rescue teams from VAT. I fed that into the Government whenever I could, but it was always resisted. I am happy to apologise for the fact that my Government—the Labour Government—did not do that. I fully support what he, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and others are trying to achieve, because it is important. There is a symbolism associated with it. It would say to the mountain rescue teams that they are recognised, and they should be rewarded and congratulated. As a little aside, in 2001, my very first question at Prime Minister’s Question Time was on mountain rescue teams. I have a great affinity with them, and I am happy to support what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) proposes.
Something else that is close to my heart is the lifeboat service, and during the floods the Maryport inshore rescue lifeboat in particular did incredible work. Just before the regional development agencies were disbanded, we had agreed a sum of about £1 million to build a new lifeboat station. That service now has a brand-new lifeboat, but nowhere to put it. It had planned to put it into a brand-new lifeboat station in Maryport, but there is no RDA funding.
I could go on discussing the emergency services. The RAF, too, did an incredible job, as did the coastguard and an organisation that many of us did not really expect to see: the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That sounds strange, but the RSPCA was involved. I can remember being at a barrier set up to keep people away from the danger, and an elderly couple came up to me whose only concern—whose greatest concern—was their pet, which had been left in their flooded house. I got in touch with the RSPCA, which got a basket and rescued it. We should not forget its contribution.
The Environment Agency, in particular Glyn Vaughan and his team, did and are still doing a tremendous amount of work. In all the discussions and debates that the Minister will have on budgets, he should ensure that the Environment Agency is protected as much as possible.
Mr Reed
Before my hon. Friend moves on too much further, we do not yet know the cost of the Cumbria floods. I believe that the insurance adjustments are about £200 million so far—I repeat, so far. The RSPCA undertook a fundamental role in protecting livestock. Has he spoken to any farmers—I know that he has spent a great deal of time with them over the past year—who need feed for their herds and cattle about the role of the RSPCA and how much money it may have saved them?
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. Could I ask Members who make contributions to speak into the microphone, so that the Hansard reporters can pick up what they say?
Tony Cunningham
Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I very much concur with my hon. Friend’s comments, and farmers are saying that. Let us not forget that hundreds, if not more, of cattle, sheep and other livestock ended up out in the Solway Firth, having come down the Cocker or Derwent rivers and been swept away. The livestock were hugely important, but the fields are still covered by boulders and debris and there is still a huge amount of work to be done.
I also pay tribute to volunteers, of whom there were hundreds during that extremely difficult time. I am not sure how many of us would put up complete strangers. I am not sure how many of us would say to someone we had just met on the street, who had only the clothes that they were wearing, “Come and share my house with me,” yet that is what people did. They offered their own homes and bedrooms; they fed others and looked after them.
Another group I pay tribute to—I know that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will agree with me—is the churches. We forget at our peril the spiritual side of all of this. When people are going through trauma and difficulties, having lost their home and possessions, it is important to be able to talk things through with others. The churches were on the streets, not just offering tea, coffee, sandwiches and so on, but listening and talking to people, and being there for them. The churches together played a huge role, particularly in Cockermouth.
I also pay tribute to the local authorities, who did a tremendous job, in particular Jill Stannard, the chief executive of Cumbria county council. Other Members here will have known Jim Buchanan, a good, honest and decent man who passed away quite recently. I pay a personal tribute to him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also thank Harry Dyke and Jill Elliott from Allerdale borough council.
While I am thanking people, I should thank the media—I do not do that very often—both national and local. The Sky coverage was excellent, as was that of Border Television, BBC Radio Cumbria, and in particular my local newspaper, The West Cumberland Times and Star, and Nicole Regan and her staff. Their conduct was fantastic.
Mr Reed
I am speaking into the microphone this time, Mr Sheridan.
My hon. Friend mentions the role of the media in the floods last year, and the crucial public service that they performed in informing people about water levels, weather forecasts and the emergency responses that were in place. Was he as saddened as I was to see such a stark contrast between how the media undertook and performed such a fundamental good this time last year, and how they acted in June?
Tony Cunningham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a sense, the media were with us for the floods, but during the terrible incident of the shootings—we have spoken about this in other debates—elements of the media behaved deplorably, offering people money and so on, so that within days the vast majority of people in west Cumbria wanted them to leave them alone.
I have said that the floods rose to nine feet. I talked about sheep and cows going down the river, but there were also containers—think of the size of a container on the back of a lorry—Ford Transit vans and people’s garden sheds swept down. It was incredible. Much of the focus was on Cockermouth, where businesses were devastated and the flooding was horrendous, but I also want to mention Hall Park View, which is in Workington. It was completely flooded—every house under several feet of water. People there felt that the focus was not on them because Hall Park View is just a single street, but they suffered equally. They got a little angry sometimes, and I can understand that. However, I was speaking to a resident from Hall Park View whose house had been flooded by several feet of water and I asked her, “How are things?” She said, “Well, Tony, there are people much worse off than us.” I thought that that summed up the spirit.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will also please remember the communities of Eamont Bridge. The suffering of Cockermouth was truly terrible, but even in places such as Eamont Bridge near Penrith, there was terrible devastation of people’s lives and families. Perhaps we could look at institutional mechanisms that we can put in place to try to ensure that such things do not happen again. In Eamont Bridge, I noted the huge complexity of dealings with the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency, and trying to measure river flow. What sort of institutional procedures can we put in place to ensure that that does not happen again?
Tony Cunningham
I offer my sympathies to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. As well as Hall Park View, the village of Barepot was completely devastated, but because it was on the other side of the river, people tended to forget about it. In Camerton, people could not bury their dead because the churchyard was flooded. Wives could not be buried next to their husbands and so on—it was horrendous.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, there has to be co-ordination by a range of organisations, but the money has to be in place. I shall deal with local models a little later, but we could learn a great deal from the flood action groups—Sue Cashmore’s group in Cockermouth and Cecil Thompson’s group in Workington. Sue’s group, working with Brian Watson, actually has a structure. It has a chair and sub-committees, including ones dealing with the media and the Environment Agency. It is a very professional organisation, from which we could learn a great deal.
We have said that Cockermouth flooded, Workington flooded, houses flooded and so on, but that was only part of the story. The hon. Gentleman mentions Eamont bridge. The bridges going down in west Cumbria was absolutely devastating. Not only did it result in loss of life, but we lost Harbour bridge; we lost Northside bridge, where PC Barker lost his life; and we lost Navvies bridge. Workington, or Calva, bridge is still not open. On the Saturday, the Papcastle bridge was closed as well, and I talked to a taxi driver the following day. He had already agreed the fare—£5 or £6—to go from Workington to Seaton, which is a journey of about a mile. Someone standing in Workington can see Seaton. That day, the taxi driver did a 180-mile round trip: he drove from Workington to Penrith, Penrith to Carlisle, Carlisle to Maryport, and Maryport to Seaton. He then dropped his passenger off—for a fiver—and drove all the way back. That gives hon. Members some idea of the difficulties that we faced. On top of that, even when Papcastle bridge was repaired, people were still doing 20 or 30-mile round trips, when a mile would normally have done. The forbearance and patience of people in Seaton, Siddick, Northside, Barepot and further afield who were having to travel such huge distances, was absolutely incredible.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend is giving a moving, telling and detailed description of the events of last year. He has talked about the travel chaos and the absolute devastation that was caused to businesses and to people’s ordinary lives, but would he, as a former teacher, care to talk about the effect on the schooling of children in our part of the world—not just the effect on academic achievement and attainment, but the impact of the disruption to their lives, including their psychological well-being?
Tony Cunningham
I am very happy to do that. I spoke to the then Secretary of State and the Schools Minister, and made the point that it might have to be borne in mind that, because of the disruption, some of the students would not do as well in their exams as they could have. They were having to get up two hours earlier and were then stuck in traffic, going round and round. Those who had been flooded out might have been living in a caravan, rented accommodation or a bed and breakfast, and might not have had a computer or been able to do their homework. All that had a massive effect. I was delighted that the Government gave additional funding for extra buses, but having to travel 30 miles to get to school, perhaps arriving late, and then leaving early and missing lessons so as to get back, also had a massive effect.
The big change came within a week of the floods, when we managed to get a footbridge up and running. People said to me, “Why did it take a week?” and I was thinking, “Hang on. We’ve done very well to get it done in a week.” I want to pay tribute to the Army, who did a fantastic job. I think that the footbridge came from Bedford. Getting a footbridge from there to Workington and getting 200 soldiers up there to pile both sides of the river and get a bridge across in a week was a phenomenal achievement, and it said an enormous amount about the armed forces. The local people took them to their hearts and kept going down with pizzas, cakes and sandwiches. After a few days, I spoke to the Army officer in charge and he said, “What is marvellous is that we have to do lots of drills and practices, and it’s nice to do something for real that makes a huge difference to the lives of people here.”
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman rightly pays tribute to the swift work that was done to tackle some of the worst infrastructure problems. The previous Government, the local authority and the emergency services deserve credit for much of what has happened over the past 12 months. It is worth flagging up, however, that in Backbarrow in my constituency there is still no footbridge. Some 12 months on, the residents who live on one side of the river—the overall majority of the population—have no means of getting easily across it to where Leven Valley post office and primary school are located. Still today, children are being bused in to a school to which they ought to be able to walk. That is a county council responsibility, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman might ask the Minister to intervene, as the case is relatively easy to fix. That community is still rent in two.
Tony Cunningham
I am sure that the Minister has taken appropriate note of that. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the other Cumbrian MPs know, in the near future hopefully all six Cumbrian MPs will meet, and one issue that we will look at is flooding and bridges.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Army, and I also congratulate the reservists on the role that they played in securing the footbridge. The Minister had a bit part in the Government’s response to the Cumbria floods. Does my hon. Friend not worry, as I do, that with the abolition of the Government office for the north-west, which played a key role in co-ordinating not just the Army’s response but that of other agencies, and the abolition of the other RDAs, there will be a gap there for any other future natural, or other, disaster in the English regions?
Tony Cunningham
I share that concern. I am delighted to see here the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, who vividly remembers the floods.
On the first morning, I rang Steve Broomhead, the chief executive of the regional development agency, and said, “There’s devastation here. If you look down the main street you will see that businesses have been flooded beyond repair.” He said, “You can have £1 million,” and not only did he deliver on that, but in the end he delivered £1.45 million to businesses. About 90% of the businesses in Cockermouth are back up and running, due in large part to the care, work and effort of the RDA, and that will be sorely missed.
Rory Stewart
This incredibly useful contribution is a fantastic way of raising with Parliament and Ministers the problems with the floods, and with planning for the future. May I push a little, not just on resources but on what we can actually do regarding planning, institutions and training? Looking at the current water levels in my constituency, and at what is happening to the world’s climate in general, what worries me is that we might be moving into a world where this happens far more frequently than we would like. Are there things, apart from providing money, we could do to ensure that this is a priority for the years to come?
Tony Cunningham
There are things we can do. I mentioned the Pitt report, which I hope will be implemented. That will give a statutory role to all this planning. I am not saying that lack of maintenance caused the floods—they were created by the huge amount of rain—but dredging needs to take place, and we need to maintain our rivers. Part of the reason why the tree trunks and the branches came thundering down the rivers was that the rivers had not been cleaned out. If the Environment Agency has to make dramatic cuts in its budget, I am worried that one thing it will not do is all the general physical maintenance—the cleaning and dredging. That concerns me, and I am sure it concerns others.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Tony Cunningham
I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Thomas Docherty
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He will probably share my concern that the Government are cutting by a minimum of 20% the flood defences budget—I remember that from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Does he agree that that will do nothing except increase the likelihood that we will see such tragic events in Cumbria and elsewhere in the country?
Tony Cunningham
I agree, and the best example I can give, if you will bear with me, is Carlisle. The flood defences created there cost about £35 million, and at the time of the Cockermouth floods, those defences held—only just, but they held. The estimated cost to the Exchequer—the state—of cleaning up if we had not invested that money was about £70 million or £80 million. Cutting back on flood defences and resilience measures is a short-term approach and does not value the long-term benefits accrued by investing now and in the near future.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Powerful points have been made about maintenance and the need for co-ordination, and although he is right about the flooding in west Cumbria being of “biblical proportions”, does he agree that both co-ordination and maintenance were absent in Ulverston in south Cumbria and in the surrounding areas affected by flooding? There needs to be maintenance of investment and greater co-ordination to prevent buck-passing between agencies and local authorities. We have to grip this now if we are to prevent a repeat of the problem, as we have seen in the past week in Lowick Green, where the Farmers Arms flooded again, almost to the day that it was afflicted last time.
Tony Cunningham
I agree, and co-ordination has to take place. If we do not invest now, we are only storing up problems and difficulties for the future. It is a little simplistic to say, “Well, we’ve got these budget cuts that we need to make”. To cut off or slow down funding now, which will mean a huge loss of investment in years to come, does not make any sense to me.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is being characteristically generous. On the point about co- ordination being so critical, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for the all-party work that helped the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 pass at the end of the previous Parliament. It gives out co-ordination powers and various responsibilities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that means that those authorities that have been given responsibility need to take it? I have two examples. First, many communities around the Lakes, in my constituency and in others in Cumbria, such as Bowness and Ambleside, flooded because of poor preparation regarding the maintenance of water levels in the Lakes at the wrong time of year. Secondly, one only gets a flood warning text if there is a risk from river water flooding, not if the risk is from surface water flooding. Those issues need to be tackled, because although it may have been a once-in-a-thousand-years occurrence looking backwards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said, looking forwards, these will be much more regular occurrences.
Tony Cunningham
I agree. Picking up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about co-ordination, I actually began having meetings with Cockermouth flood action group before the floods, and I have had meetings with Barepot-Workington flood action group as well. One of the things I always insist on is inviting Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Lake District National Park Authority, the Highways Agency, the local council and so on. Doing so avoids the issues that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale raised. If we are all sat round the same table with the residents from the action group, it is difficult to pass the buck and say, “Well, it’s not us, it’s the county council”, or, “It’s not us, it’s Natural England”.
Mr Reed
The hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Westmorland and Lonsdale are right: more can be done that does not necessarily require additional hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure. However, as my hon. Friend said regarding Carlisle, not only did the expenditure there save up to 3,000 homes on the night of the 2009 floods; it saved 1,200 jobs at McVitie’s biscuit factory. The cost saving there alone was well worth the £35 million that went into the flood defences.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need hard defences as well as the soft defences further on in the environment? Parton, a village in my constituency, that has suffered in the past from flooding now has its own flood action group. People take shifts at 2, 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning when the rain falls, alert each other, put down the sandbags and put in the flood barrier defences. We had council workers working in their spare time—unsalaried—and local businesses, such as drainage firms such as Mayson Bros, providing investment out of their own pocket. They were not contractors; they were doing it because they wanted to do it. That is the definition of something that has existed for 200 or 300 years—the big society. That same building company, if it is on the bones of its backside because the contracts are not coming in, and that same council worker, if he is still in a job, probably will not be inclined to put in that extra effort now—
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. May I say that interventions are becoming a bit lengthy? I think we get the point.
Tony Cunningham
I agree with my hon. Friend. Sue Cashmore and Brian Watson’s group in Cockermouth has looked again at what happens when they get a flood warning—who goes where and to which high ground and which buildings, and how many people there are. It is all organised and sorted, so if that is what the big society is, they are doing it and have been for some time.
I mentioned the footbridge, which was vital, but we needed a road bridge, and the only bridge that existed was the railway, so we needed a new railway station and a train to run between Maryport and Workington, because that was the only way of getting across the river. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), because whenever I went to him and said, “I need”, he said, “You can have”. There was rarely a hesitation. I said, “Look, the need is desperate. We need a road bridge quickly”. I think we got a road bridge in about three months, which cost about £5 million. That is a lifesaver for people on both sides of the river. The free train cost about £1.5 million, and sometimes it was full and had to do extra journeys, but it kept the wheels oiled and turning. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is here.
Thomas Docherty
On that point, would my hon. Friend care to comment on the roles of Network Rail and the train operating company, and on how they responded to the situation?
Tony Cunningham
The team of companies that got the new rail station up in, I think, six days, which is an incredible record, won a national award at Grosvenor House. We have all seen when travelling by train the people at the ends of platforms taking the numbers, and one of the funniest things was that they flocked to west Cumbria. There was a new train and station, and they were there taking photographs, which helped the tourism industry enormously. Strangely enough, the chief executive—the top man—of Direct Rail Services Ltd lives in Seaton, so it was useful for him to be able to get backwards and forwards.
Tim Farron
This will be a brief intervention as the hon. Gentleman has been very generous. On tourism, I wonder whether it is worth pointing out that the media, which did a wonderful job during the flood crisis, as has been said, nevertheless also contributed—probably inadvertently—to the general sense that Cumbria was closed for business. When the flood waters went away, perhaps even after a week or 10 days, people as close as Lancaster would not visit the Lake district because they assumed that we were all in complete chaos. As may have been noticed, I have kept out of the resource discussions, but as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless agree, a strong marketing operation is utterly crucial, so that Cumbria can stand up against those problems and ensure that it is clear that it is open for business when such things happen, as they occasionally and inevitably do.
Tony Cunningham
I very much agree, and I want to touch on tourism a little later. There are ongoing problems; there are businesses still not back in operation and people still out of their homes. I want to highlight one particular case that I have been trying to deal with: that of Mrs Michelle Lockett, who is still not back in her home due to disputes between loss adjusters and the insurance company.
I am sure this is only a coincidence and has nothing at all to do with the debate, but, strangely enough, I got an e-mail this morning—we should remember that this situation has been going on for 12 months. In it, a guy from the National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation—the insurance company—says:
“The current position with this claim is that the majority of the Buildings element of the claim has been settled…With regards to the Contents element of the claim we have agreed to accept this part of the claim subject to the normal terms and conditions”.
I want to send a clear message to NIG and Crawford that I will be watching this case very closely.
Having said that, I am not going to have a go at all insurance companies and loss adjusters. When I meet them, they say that 70 or 80% of people are happy with what went on. There are examples of good practice among such companies. Some people in Cockermouth were back in their homes within a couple of months. I am not, therefore, having a go, but there is still a lot of work to do.
Mr Reed
Does my hon. Friend agree that the insurance industry, of course, also includes practitioners of whom we would not want to see too many? However, the insurance industry and the insurance companies were a pivotal component of the community’s response in getting back on its feet after the floods.
Tony Cunningham
Yes, absolutely. I pay tribute to the insurance companies and the good loss adjusters, but I want to remind people that things are not perfect. If people are still out of their homes after this length of time, something has obviously gone wrong.
I have a few ideas for the Minister from constituents—people such as Sue Cashmore and Michelle—about how insurance can be developed. I will not go through those ideas now, but leave them with the Minister. I ask him to take serious cognisance of them, because local people often have some very good ideas. I also had a visit from the CBI recently. It had concerns about climate change and small businesses, and perhaps I can pass on its comments and questions to the Minister.
In passing, I want to mention the consultation and the idea of a flood tax, which the Minister will no doubt comment on. There is an idea that, on top of having to pay additional—
Tony Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to reply. I have come across examples of insurance premiums being tripled or quadrupled and of people being asked to pay a £10,000 or £15,000 excess. People could now be asked to make a contribution on top of that. In my discussions with people in west Cumbria, that idea has gone down like a lead balloon.
I know that tourism is close to the heart of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). It is nice to see him here. I think we have a full turnout of Cumbrian MPs, which is superb. Tourism is vital, but I wonder what message it sends when the chief executive of the Cumbria tourist board comes to see me and says that one third or two thirds of his staff have had to be axed. Half of them have already gone.
I want to say something that moves slightly away from what I have said so far, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland will talk about this, too, because it relates to the future of the nuclear industry. The one thing the people of west Cumbria—people such as Ron Williams from Bothel, Margaret O’Hare from Tallentire, and the residents of Westnewton—do not want any more of is in onshore wind farms. Even the planning inspectorate tells me that the cumulative effect of so many onshore wind farms in such a small area should be considered when looking at planning applications.
I supported offshore wind turbines, which generate enough electricity for about half of Cumbria. However, when people are prepared to put in a field half a dozen wind turbines that generate little electricity and are perceived as an absolute eyesore by those who have to live by them, we have to think again. There must be a balance between generation on the one hand and tourism and the environment on the other.
As Mr Ron Williams also pointed out—I can only concur—the wind blows on some days, but not on other days. However, the tide comes in twice a day, every day. We need to look at that issue, and I hope the Minister will say one or two words about it. There were plans for a barrage across the Solway to generate the electricity we need, but—
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. I genuinely hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the winding-up speeches will start at 3.40 pm. If other Members indicate that they want to speak, he will have to wind up pretty soon.
Tony Cunningham
Okay. I will certainly do that, and I thank you for your good grace, Mr Sheridan.
I want to say a couple more things just to finish. Two things stick in my mind. Let me give hon. Members an example of how Cumbrian people reacted to the floods. The bridge had gone down and, tragically, the police officer had been killed. The community of Northside was left without electricity or telephones. Hearing that elderly people in Northside did not have access to telephones—they were elderly so they did not have a mobile phone—someone from Penrith, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, went into the town, bought 10 mobile phones, put money on them all, drove to Workington and handed them in to the community centre, saying, “These are for elderly people who don’t have access to telephones.”
I have one other little memory, and I will finish on this note. Jennings brewery was badly damaged and flooded. It was not able to produce the wonderful beer that it normally produced, so the beer had to be produced in Burton. Ten pence from the price of the beer was going to the Cumbria flood appeal, and I cannot remember the number of times I was in a pub when someone said, “I think I’ll just have another one. It’s for a good cause.” Those efforts raised about £178,000, which is a lot of 10 pences. It also says a lot about the amount of beer that is drunk.
In conclusion, people might think we are asking for special treatment in west Cumbria. However, I want the Minister to comment on the memorandum of agreement, because we are asking for the special treatment that is already provided for. I thank the Minister, and I thank all hon. Members for their comments so far. I will sit down and let others make their contributions.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) for securing the debate. He has been after it for some time, and I am glad that, as usual, he has succeeded. He gave me my start in politics—for good or ill—when I was briefly his researcher in the European Parliament and it is a pleasure to work alongside him now. I speak in this debate as the shadow Minister with responsibility for this policy area, but also as a constituency MP directly affected by these issues.
I wish to point to the tireless work that my hon. Friend undertook this time last year, not only for his own constituents, but for the whole of west Cumbria, including my constituents. When the floods hit, my hon. Friend was a Government Whip, so he was unable to take part in any debates. However, his constituents know what he did on the Thursday night, as the rain kept coming down. They also know about the work he threw himself into on the Friday morning, when the devastation became apparent, and about the work that he has continued doing to this very day.
It is often said that the man who is his own advocate has a fool for a client, so I feel duty-bound to say these things on my hon. Friend’s behalf. Frankly, he hides his light under a bushel. I am proud to have him as my neighbour and to work alongside him on so many issues. I am also grateful that many of my friends and family members, who live in his constituency, have him as their MP.
My hon. Friend and I were in constant contact as the disaster unfolded, and I know what he did in the midst of the chaos—no one could have done more. He ensured that skips were made available for people emptying their homes. He went to buy nappies for the child of a young mother who was in desperate need and who did not know where else to turn. In addition—and he has not mentioned this—he was pivotal in establishing the local relief fund and in prising open the Treasury’s coffers, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who is no longer in his place, for funding for bridges, temporary train services and much more. I passionately believe that he provided a definition of a first-class Member of Parliament, and of leadership. He did what he did because he believes passionately in west Cumbria’s people and potential.
The belief, optimism and hope that pervaded not just west Cumbria but Barrow and other parts of the county in November 2009 are harder to find now, as they are throughout much of the country, because in addition to the floods and the community-wide psychological effects—the trauma and devastation—caused by them, our area, as has been said, has suffered significant further trauma since then. Earlier this year, two school pupils from Keswick school were killed when their bus was involved in a road traffic accident. Such a senseless loss of life caused widespread grief throughout my constituency, throughout my hon. Friend’s constituency of Workington, in Allerdale and further afield. Soon after, as the community was still reeling from that disaster, 12 people were murdered in that quiet corner of England. The community is still dealing with that event and processing its long-term response. My heart goes out to all those who were affected, and I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members present today for the recognition and respect that they gave to them at the beginning of the proceedings.
I mention those events because they are relevant. They are issues to which the community must respond and challenges that we must meet. The pattern is clearly one of challenge after challenge. None of us can directly understand the pain caused to those families who were affected by the events, but as a community our response has been typically resilient. However, I must be entirely honest—as my hon. Friend has been and as I am sure other hon. Members will be—and say that that resilience is not helped when the community sees reductions in the number of police officers and hospital services; money for rebuilding its schools taken away; widespread redundancies at the publicly funded Sellafield nuclear facility, which is the cornerstone of our local economy; and now cuts to the national flood defence budget. Our community shows stoicism in the face of tragedy beyond our control, but anger in the face of ideologically driven political choices inflicted by a remote Government with a dubious democratic mandate. I shall move on to those issues later.
I wish to pay tribute again to PC Bill Barker, who lost his life in the floods on 20 November last year. PC Barker was a constituent of mine and few, if any, of us can know what the Barker family are going through now. As the anniversary of his death approaches, it must be particularly difficult. It is a difficult subject to talk about. However, following his ultimate sacrifice, I know that he still occupies the thoughts of our entire community. He is incredibly well thought of and is held in almost unimaginable affection in the town of Workington.
Tony Cunningham
I know that I have just spoken, but I want to pay tribute to Bill Barker’s wife, Hazel, who is a wonderful woman. She lost her husband and has four children. When I meet her or talk to other people about her the one thing that comes through is the incredible dignity of the woman. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. Mrs Barker has displayed remarkable integrity and incredible dignity and is a superb mother to her children. I am sure that her husband would have been very proud.
PC Barker gave his life serving others and did it instinctively. Many of us either would not or could not do that. His sacrifice provides a definition of heroism for us all. His heroism was commended by the then Prime Minister and the heir to the throne, but the tributes from his wife, children and colleagues dominate all the others, in my memory. He was a devoted father and husband, an extraordinary friend and a supremely committed police officer. He elicited a rare combination of love and respect from those who knew him. He gave all he had for the people he served and will for ever be remembered by the people of west Cumbria.
Last year, the towns of Workington, Keswick and Cockermouth, and the areas around them, were the places most seriously affected by the floods that hit Cumbria. In Workington and Cockermouth there was devastation that is uncommon in west Cumbria. Streets were swept away, homes were ruined, businesses were badly affected and lives were put on hold. As Alan Irving of the Whitehaven News remarked at the time, the whole community of west Cumbria came together in the wake of the floods. Rivalries were abandoned—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I need not talk about rivalry, as there is certainly none between us, but our towns have long been the best of enemies, in a friendly way—and the principles of community were reaffirmed across the whole of our county, with people in Whitehaven, Egremont and elsewhere showing incredible solidarity with their flooded neighbours.
On the Friday night after the floods hit, I stood in the Cockermouth sheep and wool centre in my hon. Friend’s constituency, helping as best I could, as the then deputy Regional Minister for the North West. I was overwhelmed to see my constituents fetching what food, clothing, toiletries, blankets and, in some instances, toys they could to help the people of Cockermouth and Workington who were stationed there. Those constituents of mine, who had travelled 20 or 30 miles to do so, saw it as their job and duty, and it is typical of them and of the constituents of my hon. Friend that they should have done so.
There are many thank yous and stories from the days when the floods hit, and we will tell them for a long time, but we must first understand what happened. Credit must go to the Met Office for the ability it now has to predict extremes of weather with such precision. In the days prior to the floods we knew that they were likely. Heavy rain and gales affected Cumbria from 18 to 20 November, and the associated high river flows and flooding problems were made worse by ground that had already been saturated. By 18 November, Cumbria had already received close to the average rainfall for the whole month. The floods affected more than 1,300 homes and left many more without power and water. Of all the towns and villages involved, Cockermouth, as I have said, was the worst affected. Water levels there reached 2.5 metres. The village of Seathwaite set an unenviable record of receiving 314.4 mm of rain in 24 hours—a new UK record for the wettest November day in a single location.
As the forecast heavy rain arrived, gold command, as my hon. Friend mentioned, was promptly established. I had the opportunity to visit gold command at Carlton hall in Penrith, with the then Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The work that was undertaken there was remarkable. I have worked in the nuclear industry and am used to planning for emergency events, including evacuations, the co-ordination of local authorities and emergency services. To see the command in action was, in a strange way, reassuring. From the point of view of someone who lives in west Cumbria, having been born and raised there-—and as a council tax payer there—it was incredibly reassuring to see that the system worked, and worked well. If there are lessons to be learned from that and rolled out across the country, I would urge the Minister, who I know is sincere in his desire to improve things, to understand those lessons as well as he can.
The forecast heavy rain arrived and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, people were evacuated from Cockermouth by helicopter. It was a surreal experience to see on television Sea Kings hovering just above the Cockermouth main street—something we thought that we would never see and hope never to see again—irrespective of the extraordinary times that we have lived through in west Cumbria in the past 12 months. My hon. Friend was the pairing Whip at the time, and he had not let me off. Therefore fortunately—or unfortunately—I was stranded in London. My hon. Friend let himself off the Whip so he was not stranded, but that has not affected our relationship and I bear no grudges.
The rapid attendance and full attention of the then Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs was incredibly important. It gave everybody in the area a sense of solidarity and genuine togetherness. To know that politicians from all parties, but especially the country’s leading politician and the relevant Secretary of State, were with us in a time of crisis, was important. It was unprompted and genuine.
Tony Cunningham
Perhaps I can lighten things a little. I was in the sheep and wool centre with the Prime Minister. When he came in, he held the hand of a blind lady in a wheelchair. Somebody said, “It’s Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister”, and she said, “Y’all right, lad?” It must have been many years since the Prime Minister had been referred to as a lad, but that is typical of west Cumbria.
Mr Reed
I was not there, but I think I saw that on television. By that time, I was safe, warm and dry, and matters were well in hand. I recall that the Prime Minister visited on more than one occasion during those two days. He was exceptionally busy.
I was incredibly pleased at the time to learn that the Government had implemented the Bellwin scheme, and that rather than meeting 85% of costs, which I believe is typical in such incidents, the scheme was introduced in such a way as to allow 100% of costs to local authorities to be met. That was an incredibly wise move. The Government confirmed that 100% of costs would be met, rather than the standard 85% and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, it was made clear that the costs of building the temporary bridge in Workington—the Barker crossing—would be met by the Department for Transport. The Department also contributed other short-term resources to help the county implement its highways recovery plan, and ensure that all affected areas were back in working order as soon as possible.
I pay tribute to all those involved in the logistics of establishing the train service and to those who helped to establish the brand new Tesco overnight, which was adjacent to the train service. It is a tribute to the feats that people can achieve in times of crisis. I pay tribute to Cumbria police, under the fantastic leadership of chief constable Craig Mackey, and to the county council, under the leadership of Jill Stannard, who I believe had been made chief executive that very day. I thank Cumbria fire and rescue service, the local NHS, the Environment Agency and all the welfare charities that have been mentioned. I also mention British Telecom and other utility companies, our magnificent armed forces and reservists, and many others who acted in superb concert as the floods hit.
The media have been mentioned briefly. Radio Cumbria was absolutely indispensible at the time. It became an irreplaceable service which, in my opinion, immediately demonstrated the value and strength of public service broadcasting—something that no other organisation could have provided. Border Television from the independent sector was also incredibly impressive.
As I went around the flooded areas, it became clear from several conversations I had just how vital the mountain rescue teams had been, especially in Keswick. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is no longer in his place, but he is right. For many years he has been a stalwart advocate of the need for mountain rescue teams to have their VAT refunded. When the Labour party was in government, I joined him in that view, both privately and publicly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington also joined in the debate, privately and often stridently. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I know that the Minister will take note of that point. It is a difficult issue because in our part of the world, and in many other places like Cumbria such as the Pennines, mountain rescue is a vital emergency service.
A number of organisations acted in remarkable concert. After speaking to people in Keswick about the mountain rescue service I was left in no doubt as to what the service provided. The case for financial help from the state is irrefutable. I mention the big society but not in a pejorative sense. Quite simply, if one seeks a definition for the kinds of things that underpin that centuries-old concept, the mountain rescue teams provide one such example. They offer services that no one else can, or will, provide.
Away from the heavily hit areas, many other towns and villages in west Cumbria were affected by the flooding. In some quarters, they were referred to as “the forgotten flooded”—places such as Parton, Cleator, Holmrook, Bootle, Egremont, Lorton and elsewhere. Thankfully, those areas did not witness the same devastation as Workington and Cockermouth, but they endured real suffering that was equally deserving of Government resources and support. At the time, I made the case in the Chamber that such support should have been forthcoming. I saw the effects of the flooding on those communities, and I pointed out that no community should be left behind. As a country, we need to take forward that principle and enshrine it in our flood defence policies.
Ultimately, the costs of recovery in Cumbria are not yet fully known. If we look at the insurance claims that have been made and paid so far, they are in excess of £200 million. However, we do not know what the effect has been on the economy or the tourism industry, and we do not yet know the long-term effects on agriculture and other sectors, so the final figure will be significantly in excess of £200 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington paid tribute to a number of ordinary people who were involved in the response to the floods when they hit. I wish to take the opportunity to pay tribute again to a special Copeland borough councillor, Councillor David Banks. When the banks of the River Ehen burst and houses along the banks of that river were flooded, he went to the aid of some elderly people who lived in his patch. With his bare hands, in the deluge and the pouring rain, he tried to rebuild the river bank with stones and baskets as the rain kept coming. That is the kind of people we are. Whenever my hon. Friend and I have taken part in debates such as this over the past 12 months, such statements have almost become a cliché, but it is no less true. That is the kind of people we are in west Cumbria and people such as Councillor Banks are the kind of public servants that we need.
As the people in the village of Parton taught me five years ago, it takes only a little bit of water to cause immense damage and for a flood to have a huge impact on the life of a family and its memories. Just one foot of water can ruin a home and destroy treasured and irreplaceable possessions such as invaluable photographs and mementos of children and other loved ones. Floods take away so much that can never be replaced.
The Environment Agency is among those organisations that have been pivotal in achieving recovery from the floods, not just at the time but since then. In the six months following the flooding, it extended the free flood warning service to an additional 3,000 Cumbrian homes and businesses. It began work with 30 flood action groups and commissioned a £100,000 study to look at the current standards of flood protection and possible options to reduce future flood risk in Cockermouth. In Keswick, it invested more than £700,000 in flood defence walls in the High Hill area, and in Ulverston it repaired existing flood defences and improved other flood defences to certain properties.
Before the floods last year, Carlisle had received significant investment in defences—between £30 million and £35 million—following the floods of 2005. Cockermouth, Keswick and Ulverston had all benefited from some flood defence investment under the last Government, and much more was planned. For example, in Keswick, which is now in my constituency following the boundary change before the last election, the Environment Agency had done a study to justify improvement works and had allocated funding to design works in 2010-11 for construction at an estimated cost of £5 million. I ask the Minister in all sincerity and with genuine respect to ensure that those works proceed. I certainly hope that they do. I have written to the Secretary of State regarding that issue, and I hope that the Minister can today give my constituents in Keswick the assurances that they seek about the flood works that they expect to take place there.
In Ulverston, funding had been allocated for 2010-11 to develop a scheme for Dragley beck, which is programmed for construction in 2011-12 at a cost of £2 million. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington will want it to be taken forward as well. The project at Dragley beck would raise the existing once-in-20-years standard of flood protection to once in 70 years. For Cockermouth, indicative funding is in place to begin studying a potential scheme in 2012-13.
The Environment Agency brought forward other schemes for Cumbria under the previous Government. In the light of the cuts, can the Minister notify Cumbrian local authorities about which flood defence schemes will be continued and which will be scrapped? The people of Cumbria have a right to know that as a matter of urgency. Heavy rainfall has raised the spectre of flooding again in the past few days. Flooding has been a real possibility in Keswick and elsewhere, and we need to know where we stand.
Flooding is one of the most difficult issues facing the nation. It is likely to happen more, not less. Carlisle flooded in 2005, before the horrendous floods in 2007 and the Cumbrian floods in 2009. We need to be able to meet the practical and policy challenges that flooding poses. The nature of that policy challenge for every community at risk of flooding means that it must be properly resourced by Government. The previous Labour Government more than doubled spending on the management of flood risk. That is beyond doubt: it is irrefutable. We are talking about west Cumbria today, but none of us should forget the other communities that have been affected by flooding devastation. I think that the costs of the floods in 2007 were in excess of £3 billion. Thirteen lives were lost. None of us should forget that.
Between 2007 and 2009, the Environment Agency completed 106 flood defence schemes. Will the Minister tell us how many flood defence schemes will be undertaken by the agency under its newly cut budget, year by year for the life of this Parliament? Further to that, will he tell us where those schemes will be? Communities such as those in Leeds and elsewhere need to know what is happening to their flood defence capability.
I genuinely look forward to working with the Government and with the Minister on issues on which we agree. Flooding should not be a party political issue. It should be an issue of national interest, on which we all work in concert to achieve the best results. However, an air of chaos is creeping into flood defence policy and planning in DEFRA. The £170 million cut in flood defence budgets just is not necessary. Indeed, it is fundamentally wrong. We all want to see greater efficiency in how public money is spent. I support the Minister on that, but I cannot support a £110 million cut in capital spending and a cut in excess of £60 million in flood and coastal erosion defence maintenance budgets.
The Association of British Insurers has expressed its disappointment. The insurance company Liverpool Victoria believes that reducing current flood defence maintenance budgets means that
“thousands of homes still at risk of flooding may lose home insurance cover.”
The Institution of Civil Engineers has also expressed concerns about the cuts in flood defence budgets. Now, the people of this country who live in areas of flood risk are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned, haunted by the spectre of a flood tax. A Conservative Member said earlier from a sedentary position that that was a myth. I hope so and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain why that is the case when he makes his remarks.
We know that the statement of principle between insurers and Government expires in 2013, which is only a few years away. Negotiation on that issue will be complex, so can the Minister tell hon. Members about the plan? Where are we going on this issue? Will he now publish the road map that was mentioned following the insurance summit in September?
We are used to the English language being assaulted by the present Government. The Prime Minister achieves nothing in Europe, but calls that a “spectacular success”. The Secretary of State for Health claims to match Labour’s spending, yet Conservative MPs from up and down the country tell me that hospital wards are being closed by stealth. Instead of being freed of red tape, police officers are actually being freed of their jobs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims to be protecting more homes from flooding by cutting the flood defence budget, and the self-proclaimed “greenest Government ever” will struggle to be the greenest Government of 2010. Welcome to the world of DEFRA-nomics, where we are meant to believe that those most affected by the cuts being imposed are, perversely, the most happy at the prospect. That will not wash.
Tragically—and there is an air of tragedy around this, as I have said—DEFRA Ministers currently occupy one of two positions. Either they actively want the Government to abandon their responsibilities or, as they used to refer to it, “get out of the way” and therefore are happy for these ideological cuts to affect flood defences in an exceptionally damaging way, or they really have no understanding of how the cuts will affect homes, businesses and communities up and down the country. The former is almost worse, because it would suggest that the likely effects of the cuts are understood, but are being disregarded. Which is it? Surely the cuts cannot have been made in ignorance. Surely they cannot have been planned in ignorance and will not be prosecuted in ignorance.
Will the Minister tell us today which flood defence schemes in which areas will be cut and which will proceed? Will he take the opportunity to tell us what discussions he has had with which local authorities about how they should pick up the flood defence burden, particularly in the light of cuts in their own budgets? Will he tell us how many flood defence schemes will go ahead for each year of this Parliament and where those schemes will be located? I hope that if he cannot tell me or other hon. Members that today, he will undertake to write to me or place a paper in the Library detailing where cuts in flood defence projects will be made.
Flood damage costs in England alone are more than £1 billion a year. According to Environment Agency calculations, one in six homes in England is at risk from flooding. More than 2.4 million properties are at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea in England, and half of those are at significant risk. The Minister is aware of the figures. A further 2.8 million properties are vulnerable to surface water flooding. The Environment Agency calculates that in the worst-case scenario, annual flood damage costs could exceed £27 billion across the UK by 2080. Clearly, that is some way off, but it is a rate of increase that none of us would want.
This is no time to be playing fast and loose with our flood defences, no time for DEFRA-nomics and no time for cutting flood defence budgets. If the Government will not change their mind in the face of overwhelming evidence, independent advice and the experiences of very real human suffering that we know flooding causes, they must at least be honest about where their axe will fall and which communities they will abandon. We need transparency and honesty, but most of all, we need the Government to think again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I thank the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), for the 32 minutes of his speech on this subject. In the 12 minutes that I have left to respond to the many very serious points that have been made in the debate, I will endeavour to answer his questions, but he has not left me enough time. I guarantee that I will write to him.
I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). On this day, which is almost the anniversary of the tragic occurrences in his and neighbouring constituencies, and on the day that we are thinking of the people on the south coast of Cornwall who have suffered similar disruption to their lives, although, happily, not quite as tragically as in his constituency, he and the hon. Member for Copeland are right to link those events with other tragedies that have happened in their area. I come from a constituency that suffered the flooding of more than 2,000 houses in 2007; it also contains the town of Hungerford. I therefore feel a sense of empathy.
The hon. Member for Workington should be applauded for his reasoned words, for his genuine honesty and for his generosity of spirit. He has shown his pride in the performance of people in his constituency, old and young, those who had a statutory role in the rescue activities and those who did not, who buckled down and did what they could. He has shown a generous appreciation of the efforts of the emergency services, the Environment Agency and the local authorities. It is touching to think of the role played by organisations such as the RSPCA as well. Perhaps the most moving was his tribute to the spirit of the local people.
The hon. Gentleman knows well that, just because a year has passed and his last constituent is, we hope, on the point of going back into a house, the problems are not over. In my constituency, the level of stress reported by local doctors’ surgeries increases when it rains. There is an element of post-traumatic stress related to such incidents that I am not sure we have got our heads around. Given the other tragedies that have occurred in Cumbria, I am sure that he and his colleagues will experience something similar. It is good to see every MP from Cumbria present for this debate. I pay tribute to their cross-party consensus, their pride in their area and their determination to learn from what happened.
I can pay no greater tribute than to Sue Cashmore, whom I must meet. I am sure that hon. Members are keen for me to big up other heroes, but what she is doing is fantastic. The hon. Member for Workington spoke with great feeling at the flood summit about the work being done by local flood groups, and they deserve our appreciation. To answer some of his points, I refer to what has been achieved through the summit. I hope also to dispel the myths that have been propounded by some hon. Members today.
I was asked about Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations on fire and rescue services. In fact, the Pitt review was not categorical on the issue of a statutory duty. It proposed that one should be introduced “as necessary”. There would be significant drawbacks to such a statutory duty. In his review of the response of the fire and rescue services to the floods of summer 2007, Sir Ken Knight, the Government’s chief fire and rescue adviser, concluded that a duty was not necessary. Fire and rescue authorities already turn out to flood events, as evidenced by past flood incidents. It is therefore not clear what difference a statutory duty would make. Moreover, a statutory duty could lead to the fire and rescue service being the only organisation carrying out flood rescue, because other responders, including many skilled and experienced voluntary organisations, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, might feel that they were somehow subsidiary to that.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that we are about to announce a substantial sum of money to be spent by fire and rescue services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Red Cross on flood rescue equipment. That announcement will be made tomorrow. It will cover a number of fire and rescue services, although I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman’s local service is included; I would be happy to inform him later.
Tony Cunningham
Will it also include independent lifeboat stations? Such services are not run just by the RNLI.
Richard Benyon
I accept that. We will announce £700,000 as the first part of a £2 million fund for flood rescue equipment for fire services.
I will take up with the Treasury the point about mountain rescue services raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and I will keep him informed. I heard the points made by the hon. Member for Copeland about the wonderful role played by mountain rescue teams and the difficulties they face, and I will bear those in mind in relation to our strategies.
Hon. Members have spoken about bridges and of the wonderful and speedy work that was done to return those vital communications links to their communities. We must learn from those processes and consider whether we can perform them even quicker. I understand the problem facing the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in Backbarrow, and I will keep in touch with him.
On schools, from my experience of the floods of 2007, I think that local authorities should include a member of the local education authority in their initial emergency planning team. If a flood happens in the day, parents need to know whether it is safer to collect their children or to leave them at school. If it happens in the night, they want to know whether schools are open or closed. It is important that LEAs are kept informed.
On funding, it is important that we understand the points that have been made about the demise of the Government office for the north-west. We are in the throes of rolling out the recommendations of the Pitt review and the important provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That requires a coherent and cohesive strategy at national and local level. We are testing that seriously in Exercise Watermark, which the Secretary of State and I are going to see in progress tomorrow. The main part of the exercise will happen in March. It will test co-ordination, resilience and strategic risk planning at national and local level. We are determined that every aspect of that part of Sir Michael Pitt’s important report will be seen through. We have secured the funding to ensure that local authorities are properly resourced and to secure all the emergency activities that were so ably and rightly described by the hon. Member for Workington.
I will deal now with the myth of a flood tax. I am probably at fault for the way in which I floated our plans before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. That allowed for the hon. Gentleman’s comments in the local paper about a lead balloon, which I read. Of course such a proposal would go down like a lead balloon in flood-traumatised constituencies such as his and mine. I am not in the business of introducing a flood tax. However, I want to ensure that we provide for communities that always miss out because they cannot compete with other communities that bring forward plans for flood defences that offer a much better return for the money. Some communities, year after year, are pushed down the list in that way. Through our flood and coastal erosion management strategies, more communities are identifying risk, yet some are constantly pushed down. We want to provide those communities with some comfort, so we are saying that there are ways of unlocking funding that does not necessarily come from the taxpayer. I have seen innovative schemes around the country in which the planning system has been used to unlock additional money which, when added to Government funding, puts a scheme above the line and makes it possible. I assure hon. Members that a considerable number of schemes will go ahead that are fully paid for by the taxpayer, but we have to look for ways to unlock further funding. If the hon. Member for Copeland is honest with himself, he will acknowledge that if his party was in government now, he would be looking at precisely such methods—he would be mad not to.
I would love to go into detail about the many other issues that have been raised in the debate and pay further tribute to the wonderful people of Cumbria and the way they have responded to the terrible tragedy. In particular, I pay tribute to the family of PC Bill Barker. We have an opportunity for the House to work together. I will answer the points to which I was unable to respond in the short time that I was left, but I assure the hon. Member for Copeland that I will work with him, and any other hon. Member, to ensure that the problems faced by communities that have experienced flooding, and those that, sadly, will experience it in the future, are dealt with in a cohesive and strategic way.
Energy Efficiency Measures
(13 years, 8 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
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Sheridan, to serve under your chairmanship.
Decarbonisation policies and renewable energy policies, both nationally and internationally, may not be in crisis but they are at a turning point. The Chicago climate exchange ended carbon trading, and a year ago the Copenhagen summit was not a success. Wind farms are increasingly criticised as an environmental blight as well as extremely expensive, and it has been noted that energy companies make three times as much money from wind farms as they do from coal and oil. The debate takes place in that context.
I am rather impressed by the potential contribution that heat pumps could make to our future energy needs. However, we must have complete assurance that the installed technology will actually deliver what it says on the tin. I fear that in 30 or 40 years, many of our energy policies, including wind farms, will be seen in the same way as we now look back on deck-access housing accommodation from the 1960s and 1970s—a good idea at the time, but no more than that. Heat pumps are a big investment for both householder and taxpayer, and both deserve to be assured that they will be worth the money.
Heat pumps extract heat from the ground or the air, and redirect it for space heating and hot water. The efficiency of heat pumps is measured by their coefficient of performance, which I shall refer to as COP. It is the ratio of heat produced per unit of electricity consumed in generating that heat. A COP value of 3 means 3 kWh of heat output per kWh of electricity used to run the pump. Higher COP values represent relatively more efficient heat delivery.
COP values vary by season; the colder the ground or the air, the more work the pump has to do to raise the temperature to acceptable levels for domestic heating, and the more energy is consumed. Poor design and installation also affect the COP. In well-insulated buildings with low temperature under-floor heating of about 40° C, ground-source heat pumps can be beneficial. Conversely, in poorly insulated buildings, where the pump is required to heat high-temperature radiators and hot water to about 60° C, their performance is less impressive.
The 2009 European directive on renewable energy excludes low-performing heat pumps from making a contribution to renewable energy targets. It states that
“Only heat pumps with an output that significantly exceeds the primary energy needed to drive it should be taken into account.”
From other data, we can deduce that that the EU implicitly requires heat pumps to achieve a COP of 2.875 before their energy contributes to the renewable energy target. The logic behind the EU requirement for a minimum efficiency level is that replacing a fossil-fuel heating system with a poorly performing heat pump may result in increased CO2 emissions. That is because the emissions costs in the extra electricity requirement of a heat pump need to be balanced against the emissions of burning a fossil fuel.
The most recent study of heat-pump performance, “Getting warmer: a field trial of heat pumps”, was published by the Energy Saving Trust on 8 September. The study reveals that the performance of heat pumps installed in the UK is surprisingly poor. It showed that only one of the 22 properties that had ground-source heat pumps achieved the implicit minimum EU directive COP, and that only nine of the 47 sites with air-source heat pumps achieved that standard. Something similar occurred during the Joseph Rowntree Foundation study in Elm Tree mews in York; a communal ground-source heat pump was installed that had a nominal design COP efficiency of between 3.2 and 3.5, but despite a number of interventions throughout the year’s monitoring, the delivered COP efficiency was 2.15. As a result, it failed the renewable test.
The risks are clear. There is the potential for consumer dissatisfaction with technology that fails to deliver on value for money after expensive and possibly disruptive installation; in some cases, it will raise carbon emissions rather than lower them; problems may arise from the EU failing to count the majority of heat pumps in the UK as a contribution to our renewables target; and there is the possibility of failing to qualify or to remain qualified for renewable heat incentive payments.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I wonder whether there are any source problems, such as in my constituency of Hove, with chalk-based land. Would that present an additional problem?
Graham Stringer
I understand from my A-level physics—it was a long time ago—that the real problem is the difference in temperature between the ground and the building being heated.
In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), confirmed that
“Heat pumps that do not meet the required average seasonal performance factor, as defined in Annex VII of the use of energy from renewables sources Directive 2009/28/EC, will not count as renewable.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 865W.]
In order for heat pumps to have the correct COP, each installation needs to be inspected and monitored to ensure compliance. How will the Minister monitor that, if it does not do what it says on the tin? I would be grateful if he answered that question today.
The Energy Saving Trust report was bad news for heat pumps, but disappointing COP values are only part of the picture. The threshold for being considered renewable takes no account of the carbon footprint generated by manufacture and the emission of the heat pump’s fluorocarbon refrigerant. Fluorocarbons used as refrigerants can be highly polluting if they leak, because their global warming potential can be thousands of times that of CO2. The refrigerant R404A, for instance, has a global warming potential 3,800 times that of carbon dioxide. In a written answer, the same Minister said:
“we would expect heat pump manufacturers to avoid using this particular gas wherever possible.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 649W.]
Unfortunately, I understand that 15% of heat pumps use that refrigerant.
A further study undertaken by Atlantic Consulting, “Fluorocarbons’ Contribution to Air-Source Heat-Pump Carbon Footprints”, showed that the contribution of fluorocarbons to the carbon footprint of heat pumps was considerable. Production and disposal of heat pumps made a negligible contribution; however, in power generation, fluorocarbons added 20% to the footprint. The annual operating leak rate was estimated at 6% of rated charge, in accordance with the current estimate of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee of the United Nations Environment Programme. Another academic study from 1999 found leak rates as high as 8%. Those rates are significant; they are not negligible, as was claimed in a written answer of 19 October 2010, which was based on information supplied by the industry.
Further, could the Minister obtain independent confirmation of whether the leak rates are negligible or significant, as a lot could ride on that for the future of the industry? There are no current mandated standards on leak rates for heat pumps, but the problems do not end there, because much damage is done when the refrigerants are vented into air at the end of the installation’s life, as all too often happens. I also see from a recent parliamentary answer, on 19 October 2010 at column 647, that no information is held on quantities of HFCs and HCFCs recovered and recycled in the UK. So we simply do not know how much of these dangerously polluting gases, which are controlled under the Kyoto convention, are emitted into the atmosphere at the end of the life of the installation. If emissions are not measured, they cannot be managed.
UNEP’s RTOC, which I mentioned earlier, has adopted a working assumption that end-of-life emissions of refrigerants are on average over 50%. That is not “negligible”. Atlantic Consulting’s findings are supported by a similar, peer-reviewed study published by the university of Delft in the Netherlands, which found that,
“Even though heat pumps are generally considered to be sustainable heating systems because they extract heat from renewable sources rather than by burning non-renewable fossil fuels this research shows that a heat pump is actually not more environmentally friendly than a gas-fired boiler.”
A press release from Atlantic accompanying its report argued that the RHI should be re-targeted, pointing out that,
“Under the proposed RHI, homes and offices in the UK would be subsidised to displace or replace gas- or LPG-fired heating with heat pumps, even though this would, at best, cause a very minor reduction in carbon emissions, and in many cases an increase.”
Currently, the Government are considering the detail of how the RHI will operate. The potential contribution of heat pumps to our renewables target is significant, but some way has to be found of assessing and certifying each installation, so that it makes a genuine and positive, rather than negative contribution. Ideally, minimum fluorocarbon leak rate standards should be mandated for heat pumps, so that these powerful global warmers do not undermine their contribution further.
The key point is that the nominal or certified design of coefficient of performance of a heat pump can differ radically from the efficiency after installation; so radically, in fact, that it can detract from rather than add to our battle against climate change. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is to subsidise heat pumps with taxpayers’ money at 5.5p per kWh for 20 years. That is an enormous amount of money committed for a long period, and we must be absolutely certain that taxpayers’ money subsidises only that which is renewable after installation and that which is good, rather than inefficient, not renewable and bad.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Sheridan.
I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing the debate and for the constructive way he introduced it. We believe this is an area where it is entirely proper there should be constant scrutiny. We are determined to try to do things in the way that is most efficient and effective and to ensure that we always have in mind the needs of consumers and the people paying for the technologies and installations, That must be at the heart of our efforts. I thank him for his contribution today and for ensuring that we saw in advance the article he wrote ahead of the debate.
The hon. Gentleman has raised some important issues to which I hope to respond fully. We will certainly base our decisions on evidence. Consumers expect us to do that and to use public funding wisely, and we are determined to do so. Of the issues he has raised, a number come through most clearly.
We recognise that poor insulation and design would have a significant impact on the performance of heat pumps, to the degree that it might jeopardise whether they could count as renewable under European legislation. That is why we have a microgeneration certification scheme, to ensure minimum quality standards for both microgeneration products and installers; and why we have consulted on whether the renewable heat incentive should, where practicable, be conditional on energy efficiency measures being carried out.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether we will continuously assess and monitor the installations, we should recognise that we can set the renewable heat incentive at a level that would essentially require that to be done. We can set it at a level that would assume that the home is properly insulated and that the COP, the coefficient of performance, would be at a level to give us the assurance of efficiency. Otherwise, the consumer would not get sufficient income to justify the investment. There are ways in which the work we are doing to define and refine the renewable heat incentive can be used as a driver of efficiency. Our findings on that will be published over the course of the next few weeks. That will be an important part of the process.
We need to recognise that many different types of technology are included in the concept of heat pumps. There are fundamentally different types, including those that use water, ground-source heat pumps or air-source heat pumps. We are looking at a policy that will drive investment towards them, because we believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that they can make an important contribution in the battle against climate change. We can help individual consumers to understand the contribution they can make in their own homes towards tackling some of the problems we are facing.
There is a well established market for heat pumps, predominantly in the commercial sector so far. More than 90% of the 217,000 heat pumps installed in 2009 were in the commercial sector. There is also a growing number of domestic heat pumps—a technology to which we are paying close attention. Our view is that they are one of the most energy-efficient ways to provide heating and cooling in many applications, as they can use renewable heat sources in their surroundings. Even at lower temperatures, the air, ground and water around us contain useful heat that is continuously replenished. By applying a little more energy, normally from electricity, a heat pump can raise the temperature of that heat energy to the level required. Heat pumps can also use waste heat sources, such as from industrial processes, cooling equipment or ventilation air extracted from buildings.
We have been increasingly interested in heat pumps because the analysis of pathways to 2050 suggests that in almost all scenarios there is a high degree of electrification of heating in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. By that stage, the grid is projected to be mainly decarbonised, so electric heating offers a low-carbon alternative to gas. In that context, domestic heat pumps could provide an efficient way to raise the performance of electric heating. The International Energy Agency has estimated that heat pumps might contribute 6% of global CO2 emissions reductions over the time scale.
By 2020, we also have to increase dramatically, for reasons of security of supply as well as climate change, the proportion of energy that comes from renewable resources such as solar or wind. Our level of ambition is suggested by our proposed contribution to the meeting of renewable energy targets. Those targets cover not just electricity, but heat and transport fuel. Heat pumps in that context, as long as they are efficient enough, count as renewable—or rather, the fraction of heat provided by the geothermal or aerothermal source, minus what the electricity produces directly, counts as renewable.
We aim to ensure that renewable heat plays a robust role in meeting our renewable energy targets for 2020. To help to achieve that ambition, we have announced that from June 2011, we will be launching a renewable heat incentive. Current scenarios suggest it will encourage up to 800,000 domestic or commercial heat pumps by 2020, but we are already supporting the installation of heat pumps to improve household energy efficiency and reduce fuel poverty. An estimated 2,245 ground-source heat pumps have been installed through the carbon emissions reduction target. Energy suppliers, who have to meet carbon emissions reduction goals, have increasingly chosen to meet their goal by the promotion of heat pumps in the domestic sector.
Nevertheless, we recognise that the technology is not yet mature. Much work still needs to be done to answer the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We need to challenge the industry to improve efficiency standards for their products, because we recognise that issues with heat pumps remain. My officials have already met heat pump industry representatives to consider how they can tighten standards.
Turning to the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, some heat pumps use hydrofluorocarbons—a type of fluorinated gas—as refrigerant. Such gases are greenhouse gases that come under the Kyoto protocol. Like stationary air conditioning and refrigeration equipment that also uses those gases—supermarket refrigeration, for example—heat pumps are subject to the provisions of a comprehensive EU regulatory framework, fully underpinned in the UK by domestic legislation. The framework aims to minimise gas emissions by ensuring that equipment is properly installed, serviced and disposed of. We are satisfied that the risk of HFC leakage is very small, but both the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are aware of the issue.
It is also our understanding that because most small heat pumps are hermetically sealed, the risk of leakage arises not during use but during disposal. The gas is securely contained within the units. However, I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make any further point on the matter.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful for that answer, which is in line with the answers that I have received, but is the Minister not concerned that studies have found leakage rates of 8% and that there is no mandated level of allowable leakage? Some units clearly leak, and there is no standard or maximum.
Charles Hendry
I will clarify that in writing to the hon. Gentleman, if I may, as I think he wants a very specific response, but I can reassure him that the levels are similar to those in refrigeration. The same emissions issues that apply to standards for refrigeration apply to other devices, including heat pumps.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned efficiency and whether heat pumps are truly renewable. Like electric cars, they rely on electricity, but we are considering how we can be sure that they are renewable. We will work within European guidelines. He pointed out the problems identified in some of the models examined for compliance with European standards. We will continue the work being carried out to gain clarity in the evidence available to us.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Energy Saving Trust has published results for the first year that were certainly mixed. In some cases, heat pumps performed as expected; in others, they ran so inefficiently that they produced more carbon emissions than a gas boiler. There is a gap, for a number of complex reasons, between design and actual performance. We have therefore decided to hold a second round of field trials to examine those questions in more detail. The project will continue for a further year, and we will then compare this winter’s performance with last winter’s. Given that manufacturers and installers have identified several areas where improvements can be made, we can expect to see significant improvements in most of the very poor-performing sites.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) mentioned installations on chalk in his constituency. That will clearly be a significant issue for large parts of the south coast. We understand that the technology is more challenging in that area; the chalk base is particularly poor for conductivity purposes, so how ground-source pumps are installed in such areas must be considered carefully. We have therefore requested that people in all parts of the country consider the local geology in order to be certain that the technologies are appropriate for those locations. However, as his is a coastal area, we hope to see development of water-based heat pumps. In addition, the sunny climes of the south coast would ensure that air-source heat pumps have a significant contribution to make.
One thing is becoming clear: no technology can be considered in isolation. There are issues involving control systems, the integration of different technologies in a home or business and how best to co-ordinate a properly managed installation. All those considerations point to the need for better procurement, quality assurance and project management. Consumer behaviour is also an issue: it is most efficient to keep a heat pump running for a long time at a low temperature, but consumers might not realize that. However, the hon. Gentleman clarified it effectively.
We know from experience in other countries that improving standards for product design and installation and building consumer confidence are important to creating a sustainable industry. To support quality and drive standards, we will require installations receiving public money to be certified under the microgeneration certification scheme which is now administered as an independent, not-for-profit accredited certification scheme. The MCS approves products and installer companies against industry-agreed standards and requires that installer companies belong to a consumer code of practice that meets requirements similar to those of the Office of Fair Trading. It is therefore likely that the MCS will be linked to the renewable heat incentive, as it has been to electricity feed-in tariffs, to give consumers assurances about the safety, durability and performance of heat pumps and other on-site heat technologies.
To conclude, I welcome this debate and hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman on some of the issues that he raised. What strikes us the most clearly at the moment is the range of new technologies that are emerging at an extraordinary pace to deal with some of the challenges that we face on both the energy and the climate change fronts. We have to be sure, though, that those technologies work well. We believe that heat pumps offer the prospect of an exceptional contribution to meeting the challenges and the goals that we have set, but we must ensure that consumers understand what they are buying, that they get a good deal and an efficient product, and that it makes the contribution that we all hope for.
Lion Trophies
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Mr Sheridan, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I know that the Minister’s diary was rearranged to enable him to be here today. I thank him for that, and hope that he agrees that this is an important debate.
Some issues attract overwhelming public support. One is a call to ban all imports into the UK of lion trophies. Many people are amazed that the UK still allows such trophies to be imported. I became personally interested in the issue during a campaign organised by the charity LionAid to highlight rapidly declining lion populations. With LionAid, I visited the Isle of Wight zoo, where a majestic white lion named Casper served as an ambassador for their message. LionAid works to protect and conserve lions and raise awareness of their plight. One of its trustees, Chris Macsween, is present today. I thank her and Dr Pieter Kat for their help in preparing for this debate.
I would like to outline a few facts about the decline of this magnificent big cat. Lions used to be widespread across Africa—indeed, they used to be found in southern Europe, across the middle east and well into India—but today, they are found only in sub-Saharan Africa, except for one small remnant population left in western India. Everywhere else, they have been persecuted and eradicated.
In the 1960s, it was estimated that there were 200,000 lions on the African continent. Sadly, only 20,000 are left today. In central and western Africa, only a few scattered groups remain, numbering not more than a few dozen individuals. In all Africa, it is estimated that that only six significant populations are left—in Tanzania, northern Botswana, and the Kruger national park in South Africa. Recent surveys in Ghana have shown that lions have become locally extinct. Kenya and Uganda have both announced that they estimate that their lion populations will become extinct in the next 10 years or so. In Nigeria, evidence of lions was discovered in only two of six locations where they were thought to exist until recently.
The causes of the decline are largely attributable to humans protecting their own lives and livestock. Lion habitat is increasingly being given over to agriculture to feed the rapidly growing human population. Where lions come into contact with humans, history has long shown that lions must make way. Realistically, such decline is not preventable and there will never be 200,000 lions in Africa again. However, with the lion population in such rapid decline, it is surprising that sport hunting is still permitted in the wild. We must not underestimate the impact such hunting has on lion numbers. Again, I shall provide some facts on that.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the most worrying aspect of trophy hunting is that it concentrates almost exclusively on the male lions? Although total populations may be around 20,000 in Africa, only some 3,000 of those are males, which means the species is even more at risk.
Mr Turner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to that point later. Between 2000 and 2008, some 4,250 wild lions were exported as trophies. I make that distinction because South Africa specifically breeds lions for captive hunting. Sport hunting refers to animals killed for the prize of an animal trophy, usually the skin or mounted head of the animal. That can be done legally in a few places, such as game reserves. However, illegal sport hunting across Africa and poachers selling on lion trophies to the rest of the world is a real issue.
Sport hunting mostly targets adult male animals. Hunters regard them as the most impressive to kill. Out of the 20,000 lions that remain in Africa, there are lions of all ages and both sexes, from the youngest cub to the most ancient female. However, it is estimated that only 15% at most of any lion population is composed of adult males—the primary trophy targets. Therefore, instead of the figure of 20,000, we must think of 3,000 as the trophy hunting reserve. That figure is further reduced by subtracting the male lions who live in protected areas, such as Kruger national park. That level of specific removal from any population, particularly one in free-fall, is neither ethical nor sustainable. Taking out male lions that cannot be replaced is aptly called “mining”.
Where did all those trophies originate from? Between 2002 and 2007, the number of trophies exported was more than 1,000 from Tanzania, 935 from South Africa, 455 from Zimbabwe, 283 from Zambia, and 97 from Mozambique. Those are the top five exporting countries. Based on lion population estimates for 2002, the percentage of the wild lion population that was exported in that year was 13% in Tanzania, 33% in South Africa, 32% in Zimbabwe, 14% in Zambia and 11% in Mozambique. I stress that those percentages are based on the total population, not the adult male population. I hope we can all agree that such a situation cannot continue.
Lions are social animals. Their family unit is the pride. Pride territories are held long term by the females, while adult males emigrate from their original prides. They become nomadic for some time and then challenge resident males to gain their chance at reproduction. A feature of lion biology is that victorious incoming males will kill cubs belonging to the previous pride males. That ensures that newly won females will raise the cubs with their genes instead of those belonging to their predecessor. Females need at least 30 months to successfully raise cubs. That becomes an issue, given the length of time between the previous males, and loss due to hunting of the incoming males. In other words, a rapid turnover in males can result in no reproduction at all in a pride. Such a rapid turnover is entirely predictable; indeed, it is inevitable when male lions are trophy hunted.
Lions have socially complex lives. There are many reasons why they should not be the target of sport hunting, apart from the simple fact that there are dwindling numbers. Disease is also an important consideration. In 1994, more than 1,000 lions died in the Serengeti in Tanzania alone because of an outbreak of canine distemper. Bovine tuberculosis is a severe threat to the lions in Kruger national park in South Africa. Both diseases have domestic animal origins. Feline immunodeficiency virus—a cause of feline AIDS—is widespread among eastern and southern African lion populations and affects both reproduction and longevity. Such diseases contribute to the overall decline and instability of the few remaining lion populations.
Stronger action should clearly have been taken before now to prevent lion trophy hunting. Relevant international organisations include the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. They have been entrusted with the conservation and regulation of international trade in species to conserve biodiversity. Both organisations have listed lions as vulnerable for many years. However, rather than taking effective action, sadly, those organisations have overseen their decline.
For example, the last time lions were on the CITES agenda was in 2004, when Kenya requested an upgrade on to appendix I. That is the highest list for endangered animals, and being on it would have imposed severe restrictions on all international trade. Such action was watered down by members of the convention and instead it called for regional meetings, so that individual range states with a recognised lion population could agree on lion conservation needs. Those meetings were, in fact, in part financed by the UK. The meeting for eastern and southern African range states has, to this day, failed to meet any significant deadlines or act on any important recommendations.
Lions have not even appeared on the CITES agenda in 2007 or 2010. It should be noted that CITES votes are often influenced by powerful lobbying and special interest groups. That was apparent at the most recent meeting in Doha. Efforts to protect the threatened bluefin tuna—a staple ingredient in sushi—were defeated in the face of staunch opposition from Japan. Significantly, powerful so-called pro-sport hunting lobbies have boasted about defeating moves to add lions to the agenda, and they have already announced their intention to block any such consideration at the next CITES meeting in 2013. One such lobbying group, Safari Club International, has pledged financial support to assist CITES with current budget troubles.
What are the individual range states doing? It is a mixed picture. Only Kenya has had a long-standing, anti-trophy hunting stance. Uganda has announced that hunting in reserves will cease by 2011. Botswana announced a reversible moratorium on lion trophy hunting in 2008. Tanzania and Mozambique have implemented stricter controls on the minimum age at which male lions can be killed for trophies, but they have not stopped the practice. Other range states, such as Cameroon, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia, have not implemented specific plans to save their dwindling lion populations. They might have good intentions, but they have yet to take effective action.
I accept that the UK is a relatively minor importer of wild lion trophies overall, having imported about 50 between 2002 and 2008, compared with 317 for Spain, 274 for France, 170 for Mexico, 146 for Germany and a staggering 2,792 for the United States. Britain also imported 11 captive-bred lion trophies during the same period. Therefore, it could well be asked why we are being asked to take a stance, since we are such a minor part of the problem. Could not the issue be much more effectively discussed by the United States? I believe that to take such an attitude would be mistaken for two reasons.
First, the UK is a country, more than any other, where symbolism of lions is important to the public and central to our national identity. Lion symbols are found practically everywhere we turn: in our statues, our emblems and even our sports teams. We, perhaps more than any other nation, have taken lions to heart to stand for attributes that we admire, such as courage, steadfastness, loyalty, and nobility.
Secondly, our voice is a powerful one among nations. We are a leading member of the Commonwealth, the United Nations and even the Common Market. We are signatories to the convention on biological diversity and other international conventions. A leadership position adopted by the British Government would support range states in resisting the massive pressures they face from the trophy hunting lobbyists and help them to implement their good intentions. Our nation should set a strong precedent, rather than meekly following in the footsteps of others and thus allowing the extinction of lions in the wild.
In 2004, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) asked what action the Government were taking to save the lion. She was told that the then Labour Government would press for “collaborative action” through CITES to ensure that the lion does not become endangered. However, the fate of the lion was not even placed on the CITES agenda in 2007 or 2010. The next meeting is not until 2013. I hope the new Government will take decisive action to save these majestic animals. The first step is banning the import into the UK of lion trophies and taking a lead on the issue now, before it is too late, and before the wild African lion is lost for ever.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on securing the debate and speaking so passionately on a matter that is clearly of great concern to him. I also pay tribute to LionAid and the conservation work done by the Isle of Wight zoo. The work of such organisations does have an effect, but we must ensure that it does not come too late for some species, and I agree about the urgent need for action. I share his concern and am equally passionate about the subject. I am lucky enough to have seen a considerable number of lions in the wild, and I want my children and grandchildren to have the same experience.
The Government have set out to be the greenest ever, and we carry that ethos into our international dealings. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently returned from the conference for the parties to the convention on biological diversity in Nagoya, where she played a pivotal role in securing a range of historic agreements that will benefit biodiversity across the globe.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight pointed out, the African lion has been in decline for many decades and has come under increasing pressure as a result of the spread of mankind across Africa. As he acknowledged, most of the animals killed by man have been killed to protect people or livestock, but several countries in sub-Saharan Africa allow people to hunt lions for sport. There is little we can do to control what occurs within another country’s borders, but we can and do seek to influence them when we are concerned about how they are acting. For instance, Ministers can write to their opposite numbers in a country to draw attention to our concerns or raise issues during official visits.
We can also use our membership of international conventions to bring influence or provoke reflection. I have already mentioned the recent successes achieved through the CBD, and my hon. Friend mentioned CITES, a convention that is intended specifically to regulate trade in wildlife, both fauna and flora, to ensure that the survival of species in the wild is not threatened. The UK, along with 174 other countries, is a party to CITES. The convention looks to regulate the import and export of around 33,000 specimens of wild plants and animals through a licensing system. Trade in those specimens most at risk is effectively banned, except in exceptional circumstances, by placing them on its appendix I. The African lion is presently on appendix II, which allows for regulated and sustainable trade.
As my hon. Friend has stated, lion numbers are clearly in decline. In 2008, the International Union for Conservation of Nature declared in its red list assessment that the wild population of African lions was “vulnerable”, and the two most recent assessments of population size declared that the population was somewhere between 16,500 and 47,000. An accurate assessment is, for obvious reasons, notoriously difficult to calculate, but we know that the population is decreasing.
The threats to the species are numerous, but in 2004 the threat of trade was not thought sufficient to uplist the species to CITES appendix I, and no range state felt that it was necessary to make such a proposal at the two subsequent conferences of the parties, where such decisions are taken, in 2007 and 2010. CITES works by range states making such proposals to ensure that there is support from the affected region. Therefore, we would look to countries such as Kenya to take the lead, as it has the most knowledge of the situation and the tools to implement any measures required. Kenya proposed uplisting the lion to appendix I in 2004, but the parties to CITES felt that the preparation and implementation of management plans would suffice, and as a result Kenya withdrew its proposal. I am happy to report that we work closely with Kenya’s wildlife service and are supporting it actively and financially in certain activities, particularly in support for elephant populations. I will continue to build on my relationship with Ministers there and will work with colleagues across Government to take forward the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
I should point out that, as a consequence of the EU single market, CITES has been transposed into European law via regulations that have direct effect in all member states. Those regulations list species in annexes, roughly equivalent to the CITES appendices, and also impose a number of stricter measures, including the requirement for member states to issue import permits in addition to the export permits issued by the exporting country. However, hunting trophies are regarded in international terms as personal and household effects, as the commercial transaction occurred within another country rather than across borders, so no import permit is required for appendix II species, although they are for annex I species.
Trophy hunting is often an emotive subject, but many recognise that, if managed properly, it can actually benefit conservation. Hunters can pay large sums of money for the privilege of hunting, particularly for Africa’s “big five”, which includes the lion. If it is managed properly and the income is fed back into conservation schemes and the local community, trophy hunting can have, and has had, a positive effect. Also, the value that hunting places on wildlife can often mean that some species are viewed differently by locals than they might previously have been, because they have a value and are more than just killers of livestock and a danger to families. Those who hunted those animals for food or their own protection in the past might now view their conservation as a sound investment. It is essential, of course, that such enterprises are managed effectively, with the conservation of the species being of paramount importance. Recent studies published earlier this year have raised some questions about lion trophy hunting.
Lion populations may be sparse in certain areas, but there may be concentrations of them in other areas. Our support for countries, and international operations, must be on the basis of better information about where the animals are, and the support that we can give to communities as a result. For example, until recently, Tanzania had authorised the taking of up to 500 animals per year, although our records suggest that takes have usually been in the mid 200s. Many of those animals are taken abroad as hunting trophies after they have been killed. The recent report into the status of lions in Tanzania makes several recommendations, including reduction of the quota, but we have yet to ascertain how Tanzania has reacted or will react to the recommendations.
As I have already made clear, it is for individual countries to manage their own wildlife, and, in the case of animals that can be killed, possibly for hunting trophies, to set their own quotas for each species, dependent on the population size. However, if there are concerns that trophy hunting is unsustainable in some places, we and the EU can raise questions and support tighter controls. Where we have such concerns, we would contact the exporting country concerned and normally also pass on our concerns to the CITES secretariat for broader consideration.
As CITES is a matter of EU competence and with the EU being a significant trading block for wildlife as well as everything else, it means that if the EU has concerns about the sustainability of wildlife it can bring considerable influence to bear through wildlife trade. Until the most recent reports voiced concern about the levels of some hunting trophy activities, the international community was not considering whether trade in lion trophies or the use of lion derivatives in medicines—another important point—posed sufficient threat to merit additional protection under CITES.
However, the UK is presently a member of the CITES animals committee and its standing committee. As a result of recent reports and my hon. Friend’s debate today, I have asked my officials to look into the matter to see what opportunities are presented, and I shall report their findings to him. I hope that he is convinced from what I have said that the Government take seriously the conservation of international wildlife, including the lion, and I look forward to working with him on any further concerns that he has.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I regret that my written parliamentary question response of 11 November, Official Report, column 478-79W, which referenced the future direction of the right to request time to train, gave an answer which was premature. The policy is still under active consideration until final decisions can be made.
We have consulted widely on the future of this legislation under our review of regulations introduced by the previous Government since the beginning of 2010. We are considering carefully the differing views expressed and will announce the way forward in due course.
Additionally, I would like to clarify that we are putting an end to the practice of unsolicited credit card cheques through a voluntary agreement with the credit card issuers rather than by legislative means.
EU Extraordinary Competitiveness Council (10 November 2010)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
My noble Friend the Minister for Innovation and Skills, Baroness Wilcox, has today made the following statement:
An extraordinary EU Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 10 November 2010. This comprised a discussion on suggested amendments by the Belgian presidency to the Commission proposal for an EU patent language regulation in an attempt to overcome the concerns of some member states.
I represented the UK and Andy Lebrecht, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the UK when a Minister was not in attendance. A summary of the discussions follows.
The UK and the majority of member states supported the presidency compromise amendments subject to the text being acceptable to all member states. The UK also emphasised commitment to an EU patent that works for business.
The presidency proposed a final compromise following the first round of debate and an extended session including bilaterals. The compromise was acceptable to the UK and the majority of other member states; however Spain still considered the language regime proposed would be discriminatory, while Italy and Poland still expressed concerns over the length of the transitional period.
Despite many concessions having been made in an attempt to achieve progress, the presidency concluded that it is not possible to achieve the required unanimity, but that they will now reflect on how to capitalise on the momentum created.
Employee-led Mutual Organisations
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Today, I am setting-out the steps the Government are taking to support workers to establish employee-led mutual organisations.
Every Government Department will put in place a “Right to Provide”—a right for public sector workers to take over the running of services.
These rights will not be uniform across Departments because each Department’s requirements will be different. The rights will be as far reaching as possible, but we accept there will be areas where it will not be possible to mutualise, for example, because of security or operational stability concerns. It will be for Departments to set these areas out.
Cabinet Office will work with Departments to explore where public procurement processes allow for staff forming a mutual to be awarded a contract to continue providing services. Mutuals will have to negotiate contracts with the applicable Department or local commissioning body, which show how they will provide services while minimising administration and overheads.
In developing and implementing these new rights it is important that central Government lead by example. I will announce today that the Government will develop a right for civil servants directly employed by Departments to form mutuals. In the wider public sector workforce, it will be necessary for Government to work with local public sector bodies and employers.
The Government will not seek to dictate what is best for employees and for the users of services; rather the precise model of mutualisation should follow the service being provided; this could for example include joint ventures.
I am establishing a “challenge group” in Government to advise me and other ministerial colleagues about how we can best enable the success of this policy. This group will convene key policymakers and experts to drive the changes to policy and process necessary across Whitehall.
From spring 2011, the Government will invest over £10 million to fund a programme of support for some of the most promising and innovative mutuals so that they reach the point of investment readiness. This will build on the work of leading organisations in the sector to develop a network within which public sector employees, investors and public service commissioners can develop viable businesses.
The new suite of Rights to Provide are part of the Government’s broader commitment to ensure that a much wider range of organisations can deliver excellent and efficient public services. The Government will publish a White Paper on reform early next year, setting out where we can go further to shift power away from central Government to citizens, communities and independent providers.
Economic and Financial Affairs Council (11 and 15 November 2010)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
I represented the UK at Budget ECOFIN on 11 November, resuming on 15 November. The Council meeting took place alongside a meeting of the Council-European Parliament conciliation committee on the 2011 EU budget.
At a time of unprecedented economic and financial difficulty throughout the EU, the Government had made clear that a 6% increase in the 2011 EU budget above 2010 levels, called for by the Commission and the European Parliament, was unacceptable. In July the UK voted against Council’s position calling for a 2.91% increase in the budget, with six other member states. This position was nevertheless adopted by a qualified majority. At the European Council on 29 October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led 12 other EU leaders in stating clearly that we could not accept any budget increase beyond the level agreed by the majority in Council.
The Government’s aim at these Budget ECOFIN and conciliation committee meetings was to agree a budget for the EU in 2011 at the level of a 2.91% increase. The European Parliament said it was prepared in principle to accept this figure. The Government believe that agreement could have been reached on the 2011 budget in these terms, fulfilling the conciliation committee’s mandate.
However, the European Parliament also demanded an outcome on a number of broader, strategic budgetary issues. These included text on an increased role for the European Parliament in discussions of the next financial framework and the EU’s own resources, as well as a provision for flexibility to increase spending in the EU budget in future years.
The Government were not prepared to accept these conditions for agreement to the 2011 budget. At a time of widespread austerity measures, the Government believed that the over-riding priority for these meetings was to agree on next year’s EU budget, and that it was inappropriate to condition agreement to progress on these longer-term political issues. A number of member states expressed similar concerns.
The European Parliament was not prepared to agree the 2011 budget in these circumstances, ending the negotiating session on 11 November and declaring the conciliation committee’s deadline reached on 15 November. The committee therefore ended without agreeing a budget for next year. The Commission must now present a new draft budget for 2011 as a basis for further negotiations.
The Government strongly believe that there was a prospect for agreement on the 2011 budget at these meetings. Both Council and the European Parliament said they could have accepted a budget increase of 2.91% in 2011 compared to 2010 levels. However, the Government were simply not prepared to enter an agreement on the much wider demands from the European Parliament, on issues not immediately related to the 2011 budget. In these circumstances, the Government believe it was better for UK taxpayers not to reach agreement yesterday at all, rather than making a bad agreement which was counter to the interests of UK taxpayers.
The Government will continue to engage constructively in further negotiations aimed at securing agreement to a 2011 EU budget.
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council will be held on 18-19 November in Brussels. Culture, audio-visual and sport issues will be taken on 18 November. The Deputy UK Permanent Representative, Andy Lebrecht, will be representing the UK for the culture and audio-visual section of the Council. The Minister for Sport and the Olympics, will represent the UK for the sport section of the Council.
The first item on the agenda will be a progress report from the presidency on the ongoing negotiations on the proposal for a European heritage label (EHL). The EHL is a proposal that builds on an informal process launched independently by a group of member states in 2007. The designation is intended to focus on the promotion of sites that “symbolise and strengthen European history and heritage”, rather than conservation. Although the UK does not oppose the creation of the EHL in principle, the Government have reservations about the need for a new scheme that presents the potential for duplication of the UNESCO world heritage list. The UK has actively supported the voluntary nature of the scheme; opposed any additional cost burdens; and supported changes to make the scheme as light touch as possible. As this item will only be a progress report from the presidency, no formal agreement on the proposal will be reached at the Council meeting.
The presidency will seek the adoption of a decision on the selection of a city to host the European capital of culture event for 2015. Belgium and the Czech Republic are the EU member states eligible to nominate cities for 2015. Belgium has put forward the city of Mons for the title. The UK will support this proposal. The selection procedures for the Czech Republic are still ongoing and are due to be completed in early 2011.
The Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on the work plan for culture 2011-14. The conclusions take into account the final reports from the culture open method of co-ordination (OMC) groups and the Commission report on the implementation of the European agenda for culture, noting the member states support for continuing the OMC work. The work plan sets out six priority areas. These are: cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and accessible and inclusive culture; cultural and creative industries; skills and mobility; cultural heritage including mobility of collections; culture in external relations; and culture statistics. The implementation of the work plan will be achieved by four new OMC groups, presidency seminars and Commission activity. The UK will support the adoption of these conclusions.
The Council is expected to adopt Council conclusions on the role of culture in combating poverty and social exclusion. The conclusions address the need to consider cultural policies in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. The UK welcomed these conclusions especially as this year has been designated as the European year of combating poverty and social exclusion. The UK will support the adoption of these conclusions.
The Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on European film heritage, including the challenges of the digital era. The conclusions focus on the need to safeguard the cultural heritage of film in the light of evolving digital technologies. They invite member states to adapt existing legal deposit arrangements to cover film, to promote voluntary deposit and suitable arrangements for preservation, exhibition and use of films, including digitisation of film heritage and film archive education and training. The UK is broadly supportive of the aims of the conclusions and intends to support their adoption.
The Council is expected to adopt the Council conclusions on the opportunities and challenges for European cinema in the digital era. The conclusions aim to promote the use of digital technologies for film distribution, including for art-house and rural cinemas, to promote access to European works, cultural and linguistic diversity and social cohesion. The conclusions welcome Commission plans to provide funding through the MEDIA programme before the end of 2010 to support digitisation. The UK intends to support the adoption of these conclusions.
There will then be a discussion of a presidency paper on the cultural and audio-visual strands of the digital agenda. The paper asks questions on which cultural and audio-visual strands should be considered a priority in the digital agenda and how this can be reflected. The Deputy Permanent Representative will intervene to outline the two UK priorities. The first priority is the need to address the fragmented state of the European digital market to reduce burdens on business, to make it easier for consumers to get access to legitimate content and to reduce piracy. The UK’s second overarching priority in respect of the cultural and audio-visual strands of the digital agenda is digital literacy and skills.
Under the sport section of the meeting, the Council is expected to adopt a resolution on the creation of high-level structured dialogue between representatives of the sport movement and EU public authorities. The new structured dialogue process will bring together the high-level sports movement and EU public authorities once per presidency, in the margins of the Council meeting. This could potentially be an important and influential group, with senior sport figures taking key seats. The UK will support the agreement of this resolution.
The Council is invited to adopt the Council conclusions on sport and social inclusion, demonstrating the value that it places on sport. The conclusions highlight the power of sport to break down social barriers and promote social inclusion. The conclusions invite the member states to take action at domestic level. The UK has a strong story to tell on sports’ performance in these areas and will support the adoption of these conclusions.
There will then follow a policy debate on social inclusion in and through sport. The presidency has posed questions on specific projects running in member states aimed at promoting sport among socially disadvantaged groups and what priorities member states envisage for work at EU level in this field. The Minister for Sport and the Olympics will intervene to highlight examples of initiatives in the UK and to welcome the new working group on social inclusion in sport in which the UK is taking a leading role.
The Council is also invited to adopt Council conclusions on the role of the EU in the fight against doping. The conclusions intend to recognise officially the need for appropriate co-ordination on issues concerning the EU and member states’ dealings with the World Anti-Doping Agency. The UK intends to support these conclusions.
Under any other business there will be an information point from the Luxembourg delegation on a draft extended partial agreement on the Council of Europe cultural routes programme. There will also be an information point from the Bulgarian delegation on the charity campaign for the recovery of the Triumph Theatre in Haiti. I do not foresee a need to intervene on either of these.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (6-7 December 2010)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 6-7 December. The health and consumer affairs part of the Council will be taken on 7 December.
Legislative items on the main agenda, on which the presidency are likely to ask Ministers for political agreement are: a directive on prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of medicinal products which are falsified in relation to their identity, history or source and a regulation on provision of food information to consumers. The UK supports the adoption of both of these proposals.
The presidency are also expected to propose the adoption of Council conclusions on the following:
investing in Europe’s health work force of tomorrow: scope for innovation and collaboration;
a co-ordinated action for stimulating, measuring and valorising pharmaceutical innovation;
innovative approaches for chronic illnesses in public health and health care systems;
supply of radioisotopes; and
lessons to be learned from the HlNl pandemic—health security in the European Union.
The UK supports the adoption of these Council conclusions.
Under any other business, information will be provided from the presidency on a recast of the three directives on medical devices, on the fourth conference of the parties at the WHO framework convention on tobacco control, which took place on 15-20 November 2010, and on a number of conferences that took place under the Belgian presidency. In addition, we expect the Commission to provide information to the Council on the proposals for a directive and a regulation on information to the general public on medicinal products subject to medical prescription.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
My Lords, before the Minister moves the first statutory instrument to be considered, I remind noble Lords that, in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee is that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2010.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, this order fulfils the commitments in the coalition programme for government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s structural reform plan and business plan to reform the lottery so that more money goes into sport, the arts and the national heritage, restoring the shares for these good causes to 20 per cent each. The order amends the percentage apportionment of money held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund in two stages in order to protect the funding to the voluntary and community sector through the Big Lottery Fund.
From 1 April 2011, the shares for the arts, heritage and sport will increase from the current 16.66 per cent each to 18 per cent each, with the Big Lottery Fund going from 50 per cent to 46 per cent; and on 1 April 2012, the arts, heritage and sport will each go to 20 per cent, with the Big Lottery Fund moving to 40 per cent. Why we are doing this? The National Lottery was set up 16 years ago this month. It has been a huge success, raising £25 billion for good causes and over 350,000 projects. Every part of the country has benefitted. The success of the lottery depends on people continuing to buy tickets, of course, but sales remain very strong and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that, on current projections, they should remain strong.
It is important to remember the “additionality” principle. The lottery is intended to provide additional funds in the areas of the arts, the national heritage, sport and the voluntary and community sector. The lottery funding is not used for government matters and purposes, but rather for projects which the Government would be unlikely to fund. So despite the success of the lottery, we need to reform it so that it can remain true to its founding principles.
We have said that the share change alone will provide £50 million a year extra each for the arts, heritage and sport: a total of £150 million. However, when the effect of increased lottery income and the end of the Olympic transfers is included, the cash figures will be much higher. Arts Council England should receive around £80 million a year more from 2013-14. The Heritage Lottery Fund should receive around £115 million a year more. Sport England should receive around £70 million a year more.
We carried out a public consultation on our proposals between May and August, and received 362 responses. As well as the lottery distributors and the devolved Administrations, we also heard from local and community organisations and others with an interest. The response was overwhelmingly supportive of the change. Seventy-three per cent of the responses clearly supported the change, with just 12 per cent opposed. In the arts, heritage and sport sectors, 97 per cent were supportive.
Many respondents welcomed the idea of more lottery funding for these good causes. Some wanted the change to be made in one go. We considered that option, but because the diversion to the London 2012 Olympics does not end until 2012, it would not have been able to protect voluntary and community sector funding through the Big Lottery Fund. Some respondents from the voluntary sector were concerned about the impact on their sector, but others felt, as the Government firmly believe, that the protection of voluntary and community sector funding through the Big Lottery Fund, together with the additional funds that are available through the arts, heritage and sport, will enable the sector to benefit overall. Indeed, all lottery distributors should, on current projections, have more lottery income after the Olympic transfers end, including the Big Lottery Fund.
Alongside the order, we intend that the Big Lottery Fund will, in future, be able to focus its funding on the voluntary and community sector. We intend to issue a policy direction which the Big Lottery Fund would be required to take into account when it makes funding decisions. Our public consultation on this ended on 29 October and we are currently considering the responses received.
Many respondents wanted to ensure that increases in lottery funding should not be used as an excuse for reductions in government funding. The Government agree. We remain committed to the principle of additionality, as I have already mentioned. Nothing in the order would change the principle of additionality. The lottery regime, as set out in the legislation, and the way in which distributors function, are untouched by the order, save for a discrete percentage share change to the good causes.
The reductions to government funding announced in the spending review are necessary across the whole of government because of the structural deficit. They have not been made to the arts, heritage and sport, because increased lottery funds will be available. Actual funding decisions are for the lottery distributors themselves to make, acting independently of government, and they will continue to be required to report each year on how their grants have met the additionality principle. So the pattern of lottery spending will continue to meet the principle of additionality, and will not be used to replace the kind of Exchequer spending that is being reduced.
Some voluntary and community sector respondents wondered about the effect on their organisations, but I hope I can assure noble Lords that the Government believe that the staged change, together with the increased levels of lottery income and the extra money available when the Olympic diversion ends, mean that they will not be worse off. Indeed, from 2013-14, they will be very much better off than at present. Voluntary and community organisations will also be able to benefit from the additional funds that are available in the arts, heritage and sport. The Big Lottery Fund should have about £635 million a year from 2013-14, compared with about £565 million now.
Some respondents from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were concerned that their countries might lose out from the change. The Government appreciate that it is difficult to make a precise estimate because a number of UK-wide distributors do not have formulas for allocating funds to each country, but we believe that in cash terms every country in the UK will be better off. Scotland should receive about £40 million a year more in 2013-14; Wales should receive more than £20 million a year more; and Northern Ireland £12 million a year more.
I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive statement. We on these Benches welcome and acknowledge the huge success of the National Lottery. Thousands of projects, small and large, throughout the country have shared in the fortune bestowed on them by the lottery, and thousands of community groups, millennium halls and galleries would never have existed had it not been for the lottery. That is in part because lottery money has supplemented and enhanced the work of government, thanks to the principle of additionality which the Minister spoke about. I will come back to that issue later.
I also put on record the achievements of those on our Benches in supporting the arts and heritage while we were in government. We greatly increased government investment, raising it to record levels. Funding for the arts rose by more than 70 per cent in real terms; and for sport, investment more than trebled. It is thanks to that that museums and galleries were able to open their doors to the public with free access. One enormous side benefit of that has been to the tourist industry.
Since the general election, we have had the comprehensive spending review, which plans substantially to cut the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by 24 per cent over the next four years. Cuts to the Arts Council will come to 29 per cent. English Heritage, so ably chaired by noble friend Lady Andrews, will see a third of its income cut. I would be grateful if the Minister could make a statement about what impact the Government consider these cuts will have on these vital areas of our public life.
I turn now more directly to the order in question, which is to fulfil a commitment in the coalition agreement to,
“reform the National Lottery so that more money goes into sport, the arts and heritage”,
as we heard from the Minister. I am sure all in this Room welcome that commitment. However, what was strangely absent from the coalition agreement was the resulting fall in money to the Big Lottery Fund from half of lottery funding to 40 per cent—a cut of 20 per cent. In other words, there will be a cut of 20 per cent to expenditure that is charitable or that is connected to health, education or the environment. The Government’s own assessment of the impact of this change, in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, is that,
“A smaller proportion of funding will be available for organisations and projects via the Big Lottery Fund”.
I also express great concern at the ongoing funding of many of the projects that the Big Lottery Fund has committed to. I quote from the Big Lottery Fund’s 2010 annual report:
“The fact that many of our grants will be paid out several years after they are committed means we make commitments from money we do not yet have”.
It goes on to say that if,
“Lottery income fell, we might be unable to meet all our commitments”.
Is this not an income fall for the Big Lottery Fund? Is this not an issue of great concern to the Government and to all of us?
We have heard a great deal from the Prime Minister about the big society and how important it is that the voluntary sector plays a greater part in our communities—a laudable aim with which we all agree. However, we are concerned that the big society is a mask for handing over swathes of responsibility for work that has been done by government to the voluntary sector simply as a means of reducing government responsibility and expenditure. At the same time, there is great concern that government funding of the voluntary sector is under threat. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on this matter.
It is because of the proposed cut in funding to the Big Lottery Fund that I ask whether the Government will listen to the concerns of those who stand to lose. In any redistribution of money, those getting the increases will, as we know, widely welcome them, often quietly, while those who lose will loudly protest. However, in this case it seems that some of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our country are to be the losers. They are the ones who do not have the voices to protest or friends in the media to make their case. I quote from the DCMS summary of consultation responses on this order:
“Many … respondents were concerned that transferring funding away from the sector would have an adverse effect on many organisations, and that this would compound the effect of the anticipated forthcoming reductions in public spending, both for the organisations themselves and for their clients and the communities they work in”.
I would be most grateful if the Minister could provide assurances to the organisations that have submitted those responses, of which I just gave an example.
I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to improve the efficiency of the lottery distribution organisations. The Government have indicated that they intend to impose a ceiling of 5 per cent of expenditure for administration charges. The Big Lottery Fund has reduced its expenditure on administration from more than 10 per cent to 7.5 per cent in the most recent year. How will the Government fulfil their objective, and when do they plan to do so?
Turning now to the proposed increase in funding, what criteria will be used to decide how the additional funding is apportioned? How transparent will the process be? Will Ministers be involved in any way? How will the balance between national and grass-roots spending be decided? Finally, as I indicated at the beginning, I come back to the question of additionality. It is right to say that the Minister gave an absolutely irrevocable undertaking on this matter during her speech.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as having been the Secretary of State responsible for the introduction of the lottery. I emphasise that the interest is emotional rather than financial. Additionality was discussed widely when the Bill was going through in 1993 and 1994. In those days it had the agreeable title of the National Lottery etc. Bill. There was a concern as to whether the charities would lose out through the apportionment, which was 20 per cent to each of the five lottery funds. During the passage of the Bill, the Government made the offer that in any Parliament there could always be a day’s debate to discuss whether the apportionments were in fact correct, and whether the charities were losing out as a result of what had occurred by comparison with the charitable money they had received previously. After 1997, when the Labour Government came in, a general debate did not occur, but there was a consultation to which there were about 600 respondents. It was not wholly surprising, given that the people who replied were mainly producers who would be the beneficiaries of any change in the apportionment, that 90 per cent communicated that they would like the apportionments to be altered.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, alluded to additionality both at the beginning and the end of his speech, and perfectly understandably raised his concerns about the change in the Big Lottery Fund’s resources and that, inferentially, of its initial predecessors. I will say, having sat through the whole of the process between 1997 and 2001, that one noticed that if, for instance, the Department of Health decided that it would be agreeable for there to be a rather larger allocation from the lottery for cancer equipment, one did not hear from the lottery distributors that money was going to be coming to one’s constituency. The first thing one had was a letter from Frank Dobson saying how pleased I must be that money was coming to hospitals in my constituency. I did have to warn the Secretary of State for Health that it looked as though the doctrine of additionality was actually being offended against if he was the first person to communicate the news rather than the lottery distributors themselves.
I conclude by saying that I wholly support what the Government are now doing and I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she introduced the order.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and I am pleased to respond to the points made. Our consultation has shown that there is wide support for the changes, with many people pleased to see increased lottery funding for the arts, heritage and sport. However, I would acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the contribution made by the previous Government on aspects such as free entry to museums and other measures that were taken during their time in government. I also reassure the noble Lord that, in cash terms, each of the good causes of the arts, heritage and sport should expect to receive well over £100 million a year extra from 2013-14 compared with the present total of an extra £300 million a year. The additional funds will be for lottery-funded projects and need not raise any questions about breach of additionality. On that, I noted with interest the comments of my noble friend Lord Brooke and assure him that lottery projects should certainly be decided by the distributors. We hope, too, that it will be the distributors rather than Ministers who convey information on those projects in order to get the proprieties right. Nothing about this order changes that in the lottery regime.
The economic situation of the country has meant that government funding has to be reduced across the board. The arts, heritage and sport are not being singled out because more lottery money will be available. The noble Lord raised his concerns about that, but I assure him that in cash terms, Big will have much more money in 2012 than now. Between now and then, Big is not restricted to its annual income because it has a balance on which it can draw, so the voluntary sector should not feel the impact too severely. Of course, if lottery income generally falls, there might be a problem, but we are confident from what we hear from the Big Lottery Fund that that is not anticipated in any way.
All lottery distributors, including the Big Lottery Fund, should have more lottery income after the Olympic diversions end in 2012, and the voluntary and community sector will certainly be able to benefit from the extra funds in the arts, heritage and sport. This order will allow a considerable increase in the funds available for additional projects in the arts, heritage and sport, while protecting the funds available through the Big Lottery Fund for the voluntary and community sectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, asked whether there would be an effect on Exchequer cuts. There will be a spending review, and the Government will shortly announce the administration costs of lottery distributors, which relates to another question raised by the noble Lord.
If there are other points that I have not picked up on in my response, I shall of course write to noble Lords. I beg to move.
Official Statistics Order 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Official Statistics Order 2010.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, all Members of the Committee will be aware of the important work that is being done by the UK Statistics Authority. This body was created in 2008 with a statutory responsibility to promote and safeguard the production and publication of official statistics. This includes the authority monitoring and reporting on official statistics.
Under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics, government departments, the devolved Administrations and other Crown bodies are automatically deemed to be official statistics. The Act also makes provision for identifying other organisations as producers of official statistics. This is important as it enables their work to fall within the remit of the authority and for the public to have confidence in their statistics. The purpose of this order, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, is to specify these organisations.
The UK Statistics Authority has been consulted in preparing this order in accordance with the statistics Act, and is content for it to be laid. The Cabinet Office has laid this order on behalf of government departments in preference to each department laying an order for the bodies for which they are responsible. This approach saves considerable parliamentary time.
This is the third such order, and it revokes and replaces the one that came into force on 1 April 2009. The previous order contained 54 bodies. In arriving at the current order, three bodies have been removed from the previous order and six new bodies have been added.
On 14 October, the Government announced their plans to reform 481 quangos. Consequently, 37 of the 57 bodies in the order will be reformed. Once the Public Bodies Bill has received Royal Assent, many of these will be abolished through legislation. However, until the bodies are abolished or reformed, it is important to continue to recognise them as producers of official statistics so that the public can have confidence in their statistical outputs. The Government will lay a further order for the House to consider once the reforms have been completed. This is likely to be some time in 2012.
In summary, this order extends slightly the number of bodies that are subject to the UK Statistics Authority’s oversight. These bodies will have to work to the new code of practice for official statistics, and their statistics will have the potential to be nominated for formal assessment by the authority as national statistics. The agreement of the House to the order is a vital part of enhancing public confidence in official statistics. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation. The integrity and validity of official statistics is an important issue. Numbers make the world go round, as the adage goes, and if the numbers are not right, authoritative and independent, the world has a greater tendency to go around wrongly. So the statistical output of a new number of public bodies being designated as official statistics is welcome.
The standards set for this designation are rightly high. The UK Statistics Authority, which we on these Benches established three years ago when we were in office, maintains high standards of integrity and independence, both in itself and in the statistics it produces—as, indeed, did its predecessor body the Office for National Statistics. It is important for the Government and for the country that it does so. Without proper statistics that are properly compiled, properly produced and properly presented, none of us can properly gauge the state of the country, the economy or where politics and government are taking us. So I welcome the inclusion of the statistical output of the new range of bodies listed in the schedule to the order and its status as official statistics. I am sure that the designation will be a benefit to the statistics, which will now be produced under official auspices.
One issue puzzles me, however. As the noble Lord recognised, as well as proposing this order he is also in the early stages of taking through your Lordships’ House the Public Bodies Bill, which aims to scrap or modify a number of non-departmental public bodies—or, as we might call them, quangos. The Bill had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House last week, and although we on this side did not manage to convince the House of the value of sending the Bill to a special Select Committee, I think the Minister will agree that what was said in that debate gave him and his ministerial colleagues a considerable amount to think about.
The point that I wish to draw to noble Lords’ attention today is a point which the noble Lord has himself recognised: the overlap between the organisations appearing in the list set out in the schedule to today’s order and the lists of organisations set out in the schedules to the Bill. Let us take the new organisations that are listed in the schedule to today’s order. Of the six new additions to the list detailing the organisations that produce official statistics, half of them appear on a list in a schedule to the Public Bodies Bill as being under review and, in effect, two statutory instruments away from abolition: the Marine Management Organisation, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. On the one hand, the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Minister are saying that the statistical outputs of these bodies is of such value that they qualify to be designated as official statistics, while on the other hand the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Minister are placing these organisations on a list of public bodies that have been characterised, rightly, as having, in effect, the sword of Damocles dangling permanently above their heads. And that is only with the new bodies coming on to the list in today’s order.
The same applies to a number of bodies that are already on the list, such as the British Tourist Authority, the British Transport Police Authority and the Competition Commission; I could go on. So the question is this: where is the consistency here? Where are the signs that the Government have thought through all these issues? How does the Minister square the inclusion of a number of new and extant members on the designated list before us today with the proposals in the Bill? How can he value these organisations in one way but threaten their very existence in another? What will happen to the statistical outputs of these bodies if they are axed by another part of the Government in the future?
Consistency in politics is hard to achieve, but the Government seem to be doing two entirely opposite things at the same time. I would be grateful for an explanation of how and why the Government are doing so.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think I have the dubious distinction of being the only person in the Room who has taken part in previous debates on the equivalent order. I do not want to repeat the debates that we have had in previous years, but I draw to the Minister’s attention a point that was originally drawn to the attention of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The body that produces the most statistics and is the most controversial, but sadly does not appear on this list, is the Bank of England. We have had happy debates in previous years about whether it would be a good idea to include the Bank on the list. I think that in the past the Bank has succeeded in persuading the Treasury that it should not be included—surprise, surprise—but the list would be strengthened, and indeed the way in which the Bank’s own figures are viewed would be strengthened, if the ONS could have a look at them. I do not expect the Minister to have anything of comfort to say because I know how formidable the Bank can be in guaranteeing and protecting its independence, but it is a logical body to be covered by the order. I remain sorry that it is not.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I shall deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. He is quite right that I am not in a position to give any immediate comfort, except to say that he will of course recognise, as does everyone, that the independence of the Bank of England has been a major development in politics. Indeed, one has to give credit to the previous Government for putting the Bank of England in a position of independent standing. Although the authority and the Bank are in regular contact with each other, they have agreed not to include the Bank in the 2010 order, and that has been done with the consent of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. The Bank has its own code of practice for statistics, which works well for its specific and important role. It passes a lot of data on to the Office for National Statistics, and any resulting statistics, including parts of the national accounts and their publication, Monetary and Financial Statistics, are national statistics and therefore fully compliant with the authority’s code.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the Leader of the Opposition, made a strong point about the overlap between this order and the Public Bodies Bill, and those who are responsible for my briefing for this short debate will vouch for the fact that my first reaction on receiving the brief was, “Oh, public bodies again”. There is, of course, an overlap, but I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that there is a consistency in that the Official Statistics Order deals with the current position and is designed to implement this year’s additional bodies and reinforce their standing.
As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, the Public Bodies Bill is legislation in progress. It is not for me, standing at the Dispatch Box and dealing with this order, to presume the outcome of the legislative process in Parliament. The Government clearly have to allow for the passage of the Bill before they can address its statistical consequences.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that placing bodies in Schedule 7 does not mean that they are threatened with immediate abolition or that the statistics that they produce are not an important part of government. It is therefore very important to recognise that, although a number of bodies in this order are also mentioned in the Public Bodies Bill, the collation of statistics is a matter for government and will continue to be so. Any process that produces statutory instruments under the Public Bodies Bill will address the issue of the statistics that a body may well provide to government and to the public.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2010.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I am pleased to present this order to the Committee. It will be aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Natural Environment and Fisheries presented this statutory instrument in another place yesterday. As the Committee knows, better regulation across government and its network of delivery bodies is an important tenet of the coalition Government’s drive for responsible and accountable policy and delivery. This statutory instrument seeks to ensure, formally, that the Marine Management Organisation adheres to a common standard of better regulation by adding it to the existing list of bodies that are subject to the legislative and regulatory format of 2006.
The principles of better regulation stipulate that regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these principles must underpin the effective working of all our public bodies. The MMO has been following these principles since vesting on 1 April this year. The framework document setting out its remit and corporate governance responsibilities, as agreed by the MMO and its sponsors, states:
“As a government regulator the MMO must have regard to the five principles of good regulation … The MMO will have a risk-based, proportionate, targeted and flexible approach to regulatory inspection and enforcement”.
Although the MMO already complies with this, it is nevertheless important to recognise formally its commitment to these regulatory principles.
The Committee will also know that the MMO is the Government’s key delivery body for marine policy, bringing together management for a number of marine activities including fishing, nature conservation, planning, licensing and enforcement. Delivering functions on behalf of a range of government departments, the MMO is jointly sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence, and my department, Defra. The length and breadth of responsibilities that rest at the door of the MMO are huge and range from planning and fishing to aggregate extraction and pollution control. Its influence is felt not only locally but at a national and international level.
That is exactly what we—the Government, the Opposition and all parties—envisaged when the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 passed through Parliament. People right across the political spectrum worked together to put this important piece of legislation on to the statute book. For my part, now that we are in government we want to ensure that the legislation is enacted correctly. It is therefore right that the MMO adheres to the common standards of better regulation, and today this statutory instrument recognises its efforts. I beg to move.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order and for explaining it. From the outset, I can assure him of the support of the Opposition for the instrument. It is good that, as a result of the delay caused by parliamentary business, the MMO could be consulted; obviously, it is right to add it to the list of regulators and that it should have to meet the key principles of good regulation which the Minister has enunciated.
As he said, the MMO was created as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It is a cross-cutting body that brings together key maritime decision-making powers—planning, regulating and licensing activity—in the marine area. It has the overarching emphasis on and duty to the promotion of sustainable development. Generally, I strongly agree with the Minister that the Act and the establishment of the MMO are good news for the public, particularly with the establishment of marine protected areas, which have been described as doing what national parks did for enhancing awareness of the natural environment and countryside but this time in the marine environment.
The role of the MMO is very important in fulfilling the terms of the Act. Not surprisingly, the Minister will understand that I, as a north-easterner, very strongly welcome the establishment of the MMO in the north-east of England, with its long maritime tradition, its superb Newcastle University marine research department and, indeed, allied facilities such as the very long-established research facility, the Dove Marine Laboratory at Cullercoats.
I am also glad that the Government have a strong commitment to the MMO. Perhaps, via the Minister in this House, I could congratulate the Minister in the other place who spoke to this order yesterday. He admitted that in opposition he had concerns about the MMO, but he said firmly that his reservations had been resolved after visiting the organisation and that he now had nothing but praise for the motivation of the staff and their determination to make it a success. I, for one, very much welcomed the remarks that the Minister in the other place made in Committee yesterday.
Not surprisingly, I have concerns about the effect of budgetary cuts on the organisation. It was recently established, and it was to be a lean, mean and efficient organisation without lavish start-up costs. For that reason, we are concerned that it should not bear the heavy brunt of cuts in current circumstances, and that it should have the resources to carry out its work and responsibilities.
Lord Henley
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. We are grateful for them, particularly for certain points that she underlined, such as the fact that there is a duty on the MMO to promote sustainable development. We will ensure that that continues. I also thank her for emphasising its north-eastern connections. I might be from the north-west but these matters are still important to me. I will certainly pass her remarks back to my honourable friend, who will, I am sure, be very grateful for what she said in praise of him and what he said in another place.
The noble Baroness asked, in effect, only one question and that was about the spending review and the effect it might have on the MMO. She will appreciate that I cannot go into any further detail only 24 hours after my honourable friend spoke in another place, but I will make two comments, which I think my honourable friend made, to give her some assurance. First, we accept that the MMO is a new organisation and has been created as a lean and fit machine, as the noble Baroness described it. The implication behind this was that there might not be much fat on it. Its newness and the fact that it has further duties that it will have to take on next year will be taken into account as we develop the details of the spending review. Obviously, no part of government or Defra can be immune from that, but those two factors are relevant to any decisions that we make about the MMO.
Secondly, as an adjunct to that, the noble Baroness asked that we keep her and the House informed of any details of this. Again, I have given assurances that that will be the case in due course. I end by thanking the noble Baroness again for her contribution. I beg to move.
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that is has considered the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, these regulations set new recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for 2011 and 2012. They will also improve transparency in the way in which the packaging recycling system is funded and will make a number of technical changes to improve the clarity of the regulations and reduce costs to business.
First, it should be remembered that tackling waste is not just the responsibility of government; it is a responsibility for all of us, including businesses, private individuals and local authorities. It is for this reason that the Government are undertaking a review to look at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. The review’s main aim will be to ensure that together we are taking the right steps towards creating a zero-waste economy in which resources are fully valued and nothing of value gets thrown away.
Last year, nearly 11 million tonnes of packaging were placed on the United Kingdom market with the products that it protects. About half this packaging is from household goods, and after use it accounts for about 20 per cent of household waste. The rest of the packaging is used and disposed of by businesses, and it accounts for about 10 per cent of commercial and industrial waste.
The EU directive on packaging and packaging waste, which has been in place since 1994, requires member states to recover every year a minimum of 60 per cent of all packaging waste, of which 55 per cent must be recycled. Through the producer responsibility system that we have put in place in the UK and which is set out in these regulations, the UK achieved those targets in 2008 and 2009 and is on course to do so again in 2010. However, the current regulations set recycling targets for packaging producers in the UK only until the end of 2010. We therefore need to put measures in place to ensure that the UK continues to meet the EU packaging recycling targets in future years, and so ensure that packaging waste continues to be recycled. If we do not, we can expect rather costly infraction proceedings. At the same time, we need to ensure that these targets are achieved at the lowest possible cost to businesses to support them in this challenging economic climate.
The Government will set out our long-term approach to packaging as part of the waste review, to which I referred, which is due to be published next spring. In the mean time, the Government propose in these regulations to set packaging recycling targets for 2011 and 2012 only, and at a level that will ensure the delivery of the EU targets in the packaging directive but no more. Targets for 2013 and beyond will then be considered in light of findings of the review.
The regulations also include provisions to improve the transparency of the funding associated with packaging waste recovery notes, PRNs, and packaging waste export recovery notes, PERNs—the evidence notes issued by reprocessors and exporters to show that recovery and recycling has taken place. Reprocessors and exporters will now be required to report on how they have spent the PRN revenue against new more defined categories. The new categories, developed with the industry, will provide a more accurate picture of how this funding is used to benefit the packaging recycling system as a whole.
Finally, the regulations contain a number of minor technical changes. Most of them aim to clarify definitions, key dates for data returns and payment deadlines, and update references to legislation revised since 2007. Two changes are deregulatory. First, the amendment removes the requirement for reprocessors and exporters to have an independent audit, which can cost up to £10,000 for a large company. Secondly, it will allow a certain category of smaller businesses to use a simpler method to calculate their legal obligation, which will save time and effort. Benefits from these mean that as a whole, the proposed package of changes will reduce the net administrative burden placed on UK businesses by between £285,000 and £371,000 annually.
In conclusion, I believe that the amendments that the Government are proposing to the packaging regulations will enable the UK to continue to meet its EU obligations, while minimising costs to UK businesses; will make the flow of producer funding more transparent for producers and local authorities; and will resolve a number of technical issues, which will overall reduce costs to business. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, again, I begin by thanking the Minister for his explanation of the regulations and for bringing them forward today. They are in many ways a continuation of an existing policy and approach, and derive from EU obligations. As the Minister explained, the targets needed to be updated for the immediate future. In responding for the Opposition, I simply raise a few questions that are largely stimulated by the Explanatory Memorandum. We know that consultation has taken place on the regulations, and I ask the Minister about the level of interest in the consultation and the overall responses to it. Is he happy about how extensive the consultation was and whether those who will be affected by the regulations heard about it and had a fair chance to give their views?
The Minister was uncharacteristically uncharitable yesterday at Question Time in referring to consultations under the previous Government. In my modest experience as a Minister, consultations were very important in arriving at and even changing government policy. It would be interesting to hear how effectively the Minister rates the consultation process that took place on the regulations.
At paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, mention is made of the targets being set higher to offset the exemption for small businesses. Were any problems created through that; were there any specific areas of difficulty? I am not sure what proportion of SMEs are covered by the regulations. Does the Minister consider that the burden that is now on SMEs through the renegotiation of the regulations is reasonable?
In paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government talk about longer-term targets being set. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an idea of the timetable for that process. In paragraph 7.7, mention is made of the revenue that can be raised. It states:
“Reprocessors and exporters are not compelled to spend the revenue in any specific way”.
Was any specific obligation on the spending of that revenue ever considered? Does the Minister have any further information about that?
In paragraph 7.10, the Government say:
“Most of the changes will have a negligible impact on businesses”.
I am happy to accept that that is the case, but since “most” is not all, it would be interesting if he could give us any information about what seem to be the most significant impacts of the changes.
Paragraph 7.11, to which the Minister referred, states that there is to be:
“The removal of the requirement on reprocessors and exporters to be independently audited”.
When I first read this I felt some concern, because independent auditing requirements are often extremely important. However, I understand from a later point in the Explanatory Memorandum that the regulators were happy with this change. None the less, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the regulators have any outstanding concerns about that. I realise that this may not be easy to answer, but can he say whether this requirement for independent auditing happens elsewhere in the EU, given that we are talking about EU regulations?
My final question is fairly basic but important. Can the Minister assure us that nothing in these regulations will affect negatively our recycling targets and the other environmental commitments that we have entered into? We want to be reassured on that point.
Once again, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced these regulations and for explaining the large element of continuity in them, which certainly seems to be in evidence.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the Minister’s speech, except for his excellent final paragraph, but I was caught in the Chamber, having intervened on what turned out to be a rather controversial occasion. Politeness meant that I had to remain there until it had finished. I should also declare an interest—two interests, really. I was the Minister who invented these regulations and drew up the environmental regulations that were accepted by the European Union. This is unusual, because these regulations were created by Britain and France together to avoid the interference in trade that had otherwise occurred. Therefore, the regulations are permissive in the means by which we meet the ends. It is a very British concept. I also declare an interest as chairman of Valpak, which is the largest of the organisations that help businesses to meet the obligations under the regulations. It is a not-for-profit organisation set up by British industry and covers about 65 per cent of those who have to meet the regulations. I declare an interest, but perhaps I also declare knowing something about how these things work, which is not easy because they are somewhat complicated.
I have to say that there is a real and fundamental disagreement with the way in which the Government have decided to proceed. Britain has managed to become not the worst operator of recycling—as the noble Baroness knows, we have not been very good in our recycling record—by having the most permissive system that you could possibly have. It is very competitive and we have managed to do this probably more cheaply than any other country in Europe. Last year, it cost British business roughly £180 million to meet the obligations. It is likely to have cost German business about £1.8 billion. That is the difference in the efficacy of our systems; this is not a heavy burden on our businesses. Indeed, we actually have a positive advantage, because we run the system so effectively. I have to say that that is because we went in for a good capitalist system—it is competitive. Anyone who provides services has to compete with everyone else; if you do not provide or buy the evidence of recycling at the lowest possible cost, they do not come to you, they go to someone else. There is a real reason for this.
Lord Addington
My Lords, after the last speech I feel that I am treading on someone else’s carpet. It was an extremely interesting intervention and both my noble friends should be encouraged to continue talking about the questions raised. If there is a danger that the incentive to carry on will be removed, given the expertise here we should consider that matter. If allies of long standing, new allies and all those who are interested in the field say that there is a danger here, perhaps the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will keep a weather eye on the situation. I would be reassured by that commitment.
It is more reassuring when you hear from someone who genuinely knows what they are talking about; not a parliamentary expert, which is how I interpret someone who has merely spoken on the subject three times, but someone who knows something about it. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will say that the Government are watching the situation and monitoring these concerns, because if we cannot have a broad church on environmental matters we should give up and go home now.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, teased me at the beginning of her remarks that I had possibly over-attacked her at Question Time yesterday on the subject of conservation, and I wonder whether I possibly over-egged my remarks. Perhaps I was provoked by the noble Baroness; I am not sure. I accept that her Government consulted effectively on some occasions and I hope she will accept that, when we consult, we consult genuinely and with a real intention to listen. She asked what interest was shown. I can assure her that we had 96 responses from local authorities, producers and trade associations, and that the consultation covered the usual 12 weeks. I hope I can say that we consulted enough; that, as far as one ever can, we got to everyone it was necessary to get to, although one can never guarantee that; and that we covered as many SMEs or their representatives as possible. Very often, SMEs do not have time to respond themselves but have representatives who can.
Baroness Quin
In the consultation, did any of the responses raise some of the concerns that have been raised so interestingly today by the noble Lord, Lord Demon?
Lord Henley
It is the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I think the noble Lord, Lord Demon, might be someone rather different. However, that might be for another life of my noble friend.
Lord Henley
As far as I am aware, that was not the case. I shall write to the noble Baroness in due course about that.
The noble Baroness then asked about the waste review—again, a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Deben—and when it would come out. Our intention is to publish it in April of that year. April might turn out not to be a suitable month because, as the noble Baroness will know, there are local government elections on 5 May. It might therefore have to be published on 6 May, but I cannot give a precise date other than an assurance that it will be before June.
On independent auditing, again I can give an assurance that, as I made clear in my opening remarks, we are keen to try to reduce the burden on all businesses. So far as I am aware, the regulators were perfectly happy. I am not aware of any concerns. We will continue, as we have said in the past, to make sure that we strive to meet all our recycling targets, and our targets post-2012 will be considered as part of the review to be published in 2011.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend, and again I pay tribute to him for, as he reminded us, inventing these regulations, getting them through with the support of the French—something I hope we will be able to do more often in the future, but we are all learning new tricks at this stage—and getting them agreed. I am also grateful to him for stressing their efficacy and the competitiveness of our system. What my noble friend is saying in effect is that our targets for 2011-12 are not ambitious enough. The simple answer to that is that we will have the review and we want to make sure that we get everything right before we move on.
Lord Deben
I understand my noble friend’s view, but this is a continuing system. If you decide to stand aside for a relatively important period, as this would be—if my noble friend can tell me that it will be for only a year I shall be happier—the fact of history is that it takes you several years to catch up if you discover that you do want to raise the targets. As I cannot imagine that anyone in the coalition would want to lower the targets, it might be better to do this as we have done it for the past 12 years.
Lord Henley
I can see my noble friend’s argument. In some respects we are continuing with that line. Perhaps I can offer him some encouragement in another field in this area. One of the other drivers of these things is the landfill tax. It will continue with its escalator, which is due to go on up to 2015, at which point I think it will reach £80 a tonne. It is certainly a driver for all those involved in waste when considering how to handle waste. What happens to the tax after that, as my noble friend is perfectly well aware, is not a matter on which I can comment. No doubt colleagues in the Treasury will look at the efficacy of that particular tax because it is one of the most successful taxes that has ever been created in changing behaviour.
My noble friend also said that he has been listening to those who advise him and that he wants the Government also to listen to them. He said that if he was wrong he would come to me, as he put it, covered in sackcloth and ashes and admit it. If we are wrong, I see no reason why we cannot amend things later, but in the mean time we want to get the waste review right. Once we have done that we can look at these issues again.
Lord Deben
Can my noble friend assure me that nothing will stop him—let me put it as delicately as that—coming back next year with a revision, or does he really mean that the arrangements for the waste review will mean that it will be at least two years before he can change this?
Lord Henley
I cannot give my noble friend an absolute assurance because we want to consider the results of the waste review before we come to decisions. He will know that Governments can do a great deal of things as and when they wish, particularly after publishing a review. I certainly cannot give an assurance that we will do something. All I can say is that we might, if it was necessary. I would then come to the noble Lord in sackcloth and ashes to say “Mea culpa” and whatever else he wished me to say. I am not saying that we will do this; I am saying that it is always a possibility.
Lord Deben
Of course my noble friend cannot say that he will do it; indeed, that is not what I asked him. I asked him whether, if it turned out that it were necessary, he would do it. I am sure that he would. My question now is: if it were necessary, could he do it in the time, or could something in the circumstances make it impossible? If nothing in the circumstances would make it impossible, I am happy to rest on his good assurances and he need not say “Mea culpa” to me.
Lord Henley
I can never give an absolute guarantee; it would have to be a guarantee given by me at this stage. All that I am saying is that I believe that it would be possible if necessary. I might be wrong, but my noble friend will have to rest on that assurance. The important thing is that we think that it is right and proper to get these things sorted out, as we are doing now, for 2011-12, then publish our waste review and then take things forward and make further decisions thereafter. I know that my noble friend says that the price of glass has collapsed. We have seen that in the past and it has gone back up again. We have seen that with other recyclables. I think we can cope with that. These are not the only drivers in this field; as I mentioned, there is also the landfill tax. I do not believe that we face the problems that my noble friend suggests.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept that at this stage it is right and proper that the regulations go through, and that we will consider them again in the light of the review, which will be published in the spring of next year.
House of Lords
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will implement the National Clinical Strategy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the reforms set out in Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS will ensure that the NHS focuses on improving outcomes for patients. As a result, we are looking at the role and nature of clinical strategies within the reformed NHS to ensure that they reflect this focus.
Today is World COPD Day. I can assure the House that we are committed to improving outcomes for those who suffer from COPD and from asthma. We will make further announcements shortly.
Baroness Thornton
I join the Minister in welcoming World COPD Day, which draws attention to this incurable, degenerative lung condition. However, I am disappointed that he has not thought fit to use today to adopt the COPD strategy, which was left up and ready, as it were, when the previous Government left office. Apart from anything else, I wonder whether he is aware that the British Lung Foundation’s research shows that up to 80 per cent of GPs cannot tell the difference between asthma and COPD. That is a very serious issue for prescribing. The adoption of the COPD strategy would bring systematic training and awareness-raising of this condition.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I indicated in my Answer, the reform programme that we have outlined is intended to ensure that all parts of the system work more effectively in improving health outcomes. That has to include COPD. We have to ensure that everything that we do fits into the proposed new architecture of the NHS. In the mean time, we will continue to work with key organisations and with clinical leads for COPD and asthma to make sure that change happens. I know that a great deal of activity is in hand across the NHS to improve outcomes for patients with COPD and asthma as a result of the good work undertaken so far.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
Will the Minister give a pledge on World COPD Day to ensure that the compensation scheme for miners affected by COPD that was begun by the previous Administration will continue?
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, both my brothers and my father died after years of breathlessness, which is an appalling condition. Can the Minister say why pulmonary rehabilitation courses are being closed around the country, despite being recommended by the NICE guidelines?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am concerned to hear the noble Baroness’s comments because I know that an enormous amount of good work is going on around the country. There are programmes to encourage clinical leadership, improvement projects designed to integrate services, a commissioning toolkit, benchmarking data on outcomes and tools to aid local campaigns. If the services designed to help COPD patients are being diluted in any way, I should be very concerned about that and interested to hear the details.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, does the Minister recall the recent paper from the Royal College of Psychiatrists that highlights that mental disorder is behind a large number of people taking up smoking and drinking? Will he consider whether this is not an argument for further investment in child and adolescent mental health services, so that children and young people suffering from anxiety and depression receive the help that they need at an early stage and do not reach for alcohol, tobacco and other substances that can have these awful outcomes in later life?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on linking mental health with COPD in that neat way. He is absolutely right that smoking is an activity that puts one at high risk of COPD and that smoking is closely associated with poor mental health. Fifty per cent of the tobacco smoked in this country is smoked by those with mental health problems. We are determined to continue efforts to discourage smoking in the general population. We are also keen to raise awareness of good lung health generally, which brings us back to the Question on the Order Paper. To a large extent, such efforts will fall to the new public health service in future.
Baroness Barker
Will the Minister say whether the Government have noted the conclusions of the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, which reported that poor air quality aggravates and is a contributory factor to COPD? Has the Department of Health been in discussion with the Department for Transport about scaling back pollution as part of the forthcoming paper that the noble Lord mentioned?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right to raise the issue of air quality, which is of concern to my department. She is also right that we are working with colleagues across government to look at air quality—particularly in London but also in other cities—which has such a damaging effect on the health of a number of people.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, is not the network of breathe easy clubs, which is widely extended across this country, a very good example of the involvement of the statutory and NHS services with volunteers and patient response? Could not that reasonably be said to be a very good precursor to the big society?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have been working with the breathe easy groups and the British Lung Foundation to ensure that the good work that they are doing, along with that of the newly appointed strategic health authority respiratory leads, will improve outcomes for those with COPD and asthma. I agree with him fully that this is a very good example of the big society in action.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, patients with COPD are classically those who do not get access to palliative care services at the end of life. Will the Minister tell us what the Government will do to improve the access to palliative care of patients with COPD and other chronic conditions at the end of life?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that an enormous amount of work is going on with palliative care services, and a great deal of money is being directed towards them. I share her concern that hospices tend to focus above all on patients with cancer, to the detriment of those with other conditions. This is an area that we are looking at very closely.
NHS: Prebiotics
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Masham of Ilton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they will give to using prebiotics to prevent Clostridium difficile in a clinical setting, with a view to improving patient experience and saving NHS resources.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
There is currently insufficient evidence to show that prebiotics offer benefits in a clinical setting to be able to make a general recommendation in relation to prevention of Clostridium difficile infection. Of course, we will keep this issue under review. However, it is important for all patients, including those who have contracted Clostridium difficile infection, to have a well-balanced diet.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that answer. Is he aware that C. difficile costs the country about £100 million a year and prebiotics are very cheap? Prebiotics are a food supplement that bypasses the stomach and goes into the gut and helps to keep a person fit, so that they may not get C. difficile. Does he agree that anything is worth trying with such a debilitating and dangerous condition?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, not for the first time, about the devastating incidence of C. difficile infection. More than 25,000 cases of C. difficile infection are reported annually and there remain significant variations in outcomes among organisations.
In principle, prebiotics should be beneficial, but there is in fact little good evidence to show that they work or that food can provide a prebiotic effect. There is likely to be considerable inter-patient variation in the gut flora response to prebiotics, which could be exacerbated by differences in diet. However, as I have already indicated, we will look closely at the issue.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, given the difficulties and dangers of Clostridium difficile, can my noble friend reassure me that the Department of Health has noted that the Food and Drug Administration has in recent days approved fast-track designation for a parenteral toxoid vaccine, which thus opens the possibility—I hope—that immunisation will be possible, in particular for elderly, vulnerable people who are in danger of developing Clostridium difficile infection?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of the interesting development of a vaccine for C. difficile, but I understand that the vaccine is still in clinical trials. As my noble friend indicated, the company may be seeking agreement from the US FDA to fast-track the application when the development programme is complete, as that would give them access to the US market. It is of course for the manufacturer to decide when and if it wishes to seek access to the market in the UK and the wider EU.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I have said, we will continue to look at the matter with interest. Of course the department has a very sizeable clinical research budget, which is open to all bids of a high quality. There is no reason why a bid should not be made on this issue as well.
Lord Walpole
My Lords, I will try again. Can the Minister tell me whether carbolic—either as a soap or as a cleaner—has any effect on C. difficile, or is C. difficile resistant to carbolic?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my advice is that best practice guidance on the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection is clear and is available. The management of the infection requires the isolation of cases, hand-washing with soap and water and the use of the antibiotics metronidazole or vancomycin.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, the Minister said that there was not enough evidence to be sure that prebiotics are effective. Can he say whether any active efforts will be made to get that evidence, or does he mean that people must wait until a request has been made before such efforts are embarked upon?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we regard the departmental budget as being there to enable those who have good-quality and well-designed research projects to bid for those funds. I will take on board my noble friend’s implicit suggestion that the department should pursue the issue but, in doing so, I bear in mind that these products are commercially produced and that it is really for the manufacturers to come up with robust clinical data.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are more trials on probiotics than on the prebiotics mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham? Although there are no Department of Health trials that I am aware of, was the Minister suggesting in his earlier response that he is seeking the opportunity for such trials to take place?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I merely meant to indicate that we would welcome good-quality proposals. On probiotics, I understand that one study using live yoghurt showed a patient benefit but my advice is that the study methodology was flawed and its findings were not generalisable. Probiotics are not therefore recommended, as studies have failed to show any convincing evidence that they either treat or prevent C. difficile infection.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, is the noble Earl concerned about the presence of the potentially more aggressive and resistant forms of C. difficile that have been identified in our hospitals? What action is being taken to ensure that they do not spread more widely?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is appropriate for me to emphasise that, as he will well know, inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics is above all what has caused the high levels of infection that we have seen in recent years. The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics predisposes people to C. difficile infection, so it is important that those in the health service understand the cause and effect relationship involved.
It is also worth mentioning that tomorrow is European Antibiotic Awareness Day, so it is appropriate that this Question has been asked today.
Lord Colwyn
My Lords, I know what an antibiotic is, but can the Minister help me with what a prebiotic is and what a probiotic is?
Earl Howe
My noble friend has asked the question, and I hope that he will be pleased with the answer. Prebiotics are non-digestible carbohydrates that act by promoting the growth and/or activity of probiotic bacteria in the gut. The most common prebiotics are fructo-oligosaccharides, inulin and galacto-oligosaccharides. They are found in various vegetables and fruit, such as tomatoes, asparagus and bananas. The best example of a probiotic is yoghurt.
Tajikistan
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Waverley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their current priorities as they take forward their relationship with Tajikistan.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare interests as serving on the advisory board of the Central Asia and South Caucasus Association at Asia House and as chairman of the British Tajikistan All-Party Parliamentary Group.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we value our relationship with Tajikistan and welcome recent high-level exchanges with the Tajik Government. Our priorities are to encourage democratic and other reforms that will help to underpin stability in Tajikistan and the region. We also believe that there is benefit for both sides in working more closely on issues relating to Afghanistan. Parliamentary links form an important part of our efforts to strengthen the bilateral relationship and I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he does to that end.
Viscount Waverley
I thank the Minister very much for that response. The willingness of the United Kingdom to engage more would be appreciated by Tajikistan and so deepen the bilateral relationship. I believe that there are multiple reasons for doing so. Is the Minister aware that they include fully understanding the culture of the Tajik ethnic north of Afghanistan, the potential for extremism to destabilise internally and so reach into central Asia, the fact that this is a major drug route with 1,500 kilometres of open border with Afghanistan and, finally, economic and other sector opportunities for mutual co-operation and benefit?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank the noble Viscount for his constructive question. I am aware of the points that he raises. He reminds your Lordships that there is a long border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan and that many Tajik people live in north Afghanistan and play a relevant, decisive and, we hope, fully helpful part in seeking to pacify that country and meet our priorities there. He makes valuable points. Also relevant are his references to the narcotics problem, some of the cross-border trade that has been going on and some of the difficulties with the Uzbek border of the country as well.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, the distinguished Speaker and leader of the Tajik delegation now in the UK under Inter-Parliamentary Union auspices tells me that the English language is now on a par with Russian in Tajik schools. However, DfID does not see this as a proper tool of development and empowerment of ordinary people; it is in effect given low priority because DfID thinks of the British Council as the main supplier. To what extent will the Government help the Tajik Government in respect of English language teaching in schools and universities and in the training of teachers of the English language?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who reminds us that there is an important parliamentary delegation in this country led by the respected Speaker of the Tajik Parliament. I know that the noble Lord had the opportunity to meet and converse with this delegation. He raises valid points about language training. Language training does go on; indeed, part of our defence co-operation is that we assist with language training. He is certainly correct that this is a valuable part of the support for the future and something on which we must seek to build. There are obviously priorities for DfID to look at. Indeed, DfID is looking at recurrently reviewing the whole range of its support operations, almost around the world, including those in the Caucasus and in the region that we are discussing. That does not deny for a moment, however, that language training is one of the great exports and assets that we can contribute to peace and stability in the region, which I hope will continue to be the case.
Lord Dykes
Will the Minister say anything about the insecurities of some of the surrounding territories, with particular reference to the recent political disorders in Kyrgyzstan? For example, what is the position of the BBC World Service and the British mission in Kyrgyzstan?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Although the Question is not about Kyrgyzstan, which is to the north of Tajikistan, the noble Lord is certainly right that the regional issues all impinge on one another. We are still concerned about the terrible violence that went on in Kyrgyzstan back in the summer and we very much hope that the political process can now be reinforced and that a coalition can be built to bring stability to the area. I do not have at my fingertips exactly where BBC World Service activities stand, but the message of independent news delivery, ideally in acceptable languages, is very important. It is an area that concerns us and we hope that the horrible violence of the recent past will not be repeated.
Baroness Stern
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a moratorium on the death penalty in Tajikistan since 2004? If he is, I am sure that he agrees with me that it is most welcome. Are the Government ready to give support to Tajikistan if requested in taking further these reforms, particularly in relation to reform of the court system and judicial training?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I must say frankly to the noble Baroness that I was not aware of the date of the moratorium on the death penalty, but I greatly welcome it. Indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and some of my fellow Ministers have been active in carrying this message of, one hopes, the almost universal end of the death penalty to as many areas as possible. It is certainly something that we as a civilised nation believe in and we hope that that message can be spread. As to judicial training and other forms of training and technical assistance, there is a programme of help in that direction. We intend to do more, but there are limits to our resources and we must spread them as effectively as we can. These are valuable additions and we want to develop all kinds of assistance in the best way that we can.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I have a quick question. In the past there have been discussions between the United Kingdom and Tajikistan over a double taxation agreement and an agreement on provision of investment on both sides—an investment protection and promotion agreement. Do the Government have any plans to take forward discussions on those important agreements with Tajikistan?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I will certainly look into that. The general level of trade with Tajikistan, as the noble Baroness probably knows better than me, is fairly modest, but we are keen to do more on the commercial and financial side. I will look into the issue that she raised on tax arrangements and write to her if there is more news to tell.
Regional Development Agencies
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills’ comment that the handling of the proposed abolition of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) had been “a little Maoist and chaotic”, whether they will now withdraw their proposals to abolish the RDAs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
There are no plans to withdraw our proposals to abolish the RDAs. We fundamentally believe that it is the right thing to do to ensure growth and economic development that meets local needs.
Lord Liddle
I thank the noble Baroness for her clear Answer, but does she agree that the Government have got themselves into a bit of a pickle—maybe an Eric Pickles brand of pickle—on this issue? Will she clarify whether she agrees with the comments of her boss, the Secretary of State for Business, and if so why will she not withdraw the regional development agencies from Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Bill and transfer them to another schedule where their great contribution to economic development might be properly considered and assessed?
Baroness Wilcox
We will not do that because we know that the system does not work. It has cost a load of money and has taken ages. It has not achieved what it wanted to achieve in the first place, which was to bring the north and the south together, so it is time for change. That is why I am standing on this side of the House and the noble Lord is on the other.
What did my honourable friend in another place mean? He meant that change is upsetting and can be chaotic. Let us face it: if any of us have moved house, we know exactly what that feels like. We have set an ambitious pace for reform and are trying to move at speed to reorganise completely the way in which economic development is targeted and supported locally, where it can really impact on people. In abolishing the nine autonomous organisations, we have set ourselves a challenging task to achieve that by March 2012. Change is upsetting and unpleasant and feels chaotic, but at the end of change we know that what we are doing is for the best.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in praying in aid Chairman Mao, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is a little out of date? Perhaps, like the Chinese, he might prefer to follow the doctrines of Chairman Deng, who commented that, after all, it does not matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend is very helpful. It is worth remembering that the Secretary of State has just been in China doing business for Britain, and we are proud of him for doing that.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, is the Minister aware that independent research has shown that, under the plans announced by the Government, significant areas of the country will not be covered by the new local employment partnerships? Nearly 21 million people and 780,000 businesses have been excluded from local employment partnerships, with some areas, such as the north-east and the south-west, being very badly hit.
Businesses are also sceptical about the proposals. The EEF—the manufacturers’ organisation—has said that many of the proposals fail to make their mark with manufacturers. Nor did the proposals get a much better press from the CBI director-general, Richard Lambert. For the record, it was not the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, but the Secretary of State who prayed in aid Chairman Mao. Has the Minister taken into account the economic impact of the failure to appoint LEPs in various parts of the country?
Baroness Wilcox
We have appointed 24 LEPs, others are coming through and very interesting combinations are coming together. The partnerships are local and are working extremely well, so I do not think that we are doing too badly. It is worth remembering that, when the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives talked to businesses before the election, we were told over and over again that the RDAs were doing no good job whatsoever and that, the sooner they were gone, the better.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
Is the Minister aware of the way in which emerging LEP arrangements in the south-west seem likely to separate the great city of Plymouth, which she will know well, from much of its economic hinterland and its travel-to-work area in south-east Cornwall? This is of deep concern to the private sector, on which so much of our economic health depends. What guidance will be given to the new LEPs to ensure effective, wider co-operation between them?
Baroness Wilcox
The LEPs are being given a lot of help and guidance. The right reverend Prelate is right, as I come from Plymouth and live in Cornwall. Under the previous Administration, we were being run from Bristol, whereas Plymouth is right on the edge of Cornwall, as the right reverend Prelate knows well. The LEPs will make these arrangements between themselves and the arrangements will work because they are local. Local people are getting things right for themselves locally. We will assist them in any way that we can.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am afraid that Question Time has gone on rather long. We have reached 30 minutes and must move to the next business.
Disabled People’s Right to Control (Pilot Scheme) (England) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12 October be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 November.
Contaminated Blood (Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons) Bill [HL]
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Identity Documents Bill
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:38 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 2 agreed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) giving cardholders the option of being reimbursed £30 on surrendering their ID cards by such a date and pursuant to such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to an important amendment, which I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept, to do right by those members of the public who in good faith purchased an ID card. The introduction of ID cards was controversial and subject to intense debate in your Lordships' House. We on this side saw the ID card scheme as a convenient and secure way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life. The card was more affordable than a passport and functioned as a valid travel document throughout Europe, and we saw it as a way of demonstrating eligibility to work and as proof of age for young people or those without a driving licence. The parties opposite disagreed with that principle and in their election manifestos argued for abolition of the cards. For that reason, we have not at any stage sought to oppose the Bill, although in Committee we tabled some probing and constructive amendments, including this one.
The point of my amendment is this. As a result of the introduction of ID cards, 12,000 or so members of the public purchased a card for £30. The cards were for a period of 10 years. As a result of the Bill, should it successfully pass, the cards are to be cancelled within a short time, many years before their due expiry date. That is fair enough; it is a decision of the Government and is why they have brought this legislation to your Lordships' House. What is not fair is the Government’s decision to refuse to refund the £30 to those who purchased an ID card.
I have been rather disappointed by the Minister’s somewhat unsympathetic attitude. On Second Reading, she said:
“We realise that some people who spent £30 for a card with a 10-year life expectancy will be disappointed that it will be cancelled later this year without any refund, but those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out”.
She went on to say that,
“citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. It was clear that this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 715.]
She then dismissed the potential refund of £30 as,
“rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 742.]
The Minister seemed to be saying that members of the public are meant to have a thorough understanding of the views of political parties, make an assessment of who is going to win an election and then make their dispositions accordingly.
Baroness Hamwee
I am confused—I do not know whether other noble Lords are. Is the noble Lord speaking to the first and third amendments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
In the flurry of Members leaving, the noble Baroness may have missed that my noble friend Lord Brett did not move the first group. I am talking about Amendment 2.
Even if you were to accept that argument, which I do not, the fact is that there were mixed messages. I shall read an extract from the Daily Telegraph of 24 May 2010:
“Chris Grayling, the former shadow home secretary, had signalled that there would be refunds for cancelled cards”.
So even if you accept the argument that members of the public were meant to read the newspapers to get an understanding of what the opposition parties were saying would happen with ID cards in the event that they won—that even though a member of the public had bought a card for 10 years, it was tough luck—the fact is that the position was not clear in the media and there were conflicting statements.
I encourage noble Lords to think about the wider principle, not just about ID cards and £30. An incoming Government are saying that because they disagreed with the original policy of a previous Government, it is simply tough luck that members of the public decided to act on that policy. They are simply expected to have this right taken away from them without any possible compensation or recompense at all. I think that that is a rather extraordinary principle to adopt. I also think that it impacts on the reputation of governments as a whole. Does the Minister not see that, in refusing to refund the £30, she is really developing a new principle which can only reduce trust in government generally?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 2. I led the opposition from these benches to the Identity Cards Bill. I spent a good deal of one year of my life opposing it. I am therefore utterly delighted that this Bill is before the House. However, I have to say that, for me, it is slighted by the denial of reimbursement of the fee paid by 12,000 of our fellow citizens when they took out this card. Had they been told at the time they took out the card that they were in danger of losing the card and not being reimbursed, then that would be different. Had the coalition partners in their election manifestos said not merely that they would revoke the whole of the ID card scheme, but not compensate those who had taken cards in the interim, then that would be different. But neither of those circumstances prevails. I really do not think that it is remotely acceptable, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, laid out in moving the amendment. It simply is not acceptable to say, “Ah, but they should have realised”, which is what it boils down to.
Governments must set an example of the standards they expect of private industry. Had private industry engaged in a tactic of this sort, noble Lords on all the Benches would have been up in arms, and rightly so. I feel probably more strongly than I ought to that there is a simple, basic issue of fairness in this. Since this coalition launched itself as a coalition on the basis of fairness, I felt compelled, contrary to the wishes of my Whips, to put my name to this amendment, and I have done so with some conviction.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I support noble Lords who have spoken. Will the noble Baroness tell the House whether she disputes that the card is property for the purposes of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights? Its cancellation is therefore a deprivation of property and compensation is payable. It would be most unfortunate if those whose cards are being taken away need to litigate this matter.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I supported the introduction of ID cards. I still oppose this Bill in abolishing them. But certainly I think that the Government are being very petty in terms of refusing compensation to those who bought the cards, particularly as it appears that they are paying compensation to contractors which supplied machinery, software and everything else to set up the ID scheme. They will be paid full compensation. The argument is that they have a contract between the Government and them.
I would argue that the people who bought ID cards equally have a contract between themselves as individuals and the Government from whom they purchased the card. If that is the case, they are as much entitled to compensation as the companies which are being compensated for loss of earnings and profits as a result of the card scheme being cancelled. Will the noble Baroness spell out exactly what compensation is being paid to these companies? I gather that the computers holding the information will be physically smashed up. Will she also include the cost of that smashing up? There must be a cost to the public purse involved in all of that. Perhaps the noble Baroness will spell some of that out during her speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the people who hold these cards, and there were not many of them, were inveigled into getting them on the basis that the scheme would go ahead and eventually would apply to everyone. In fact, they were helping the Government out. Although it was not this coalition Government, it was a Labour Government. Nevertheless, those people had every reason to trust the Government and trust a future Government to give them some recompense if the system of ID cards did not go ahead.
I have to say to the noble Baroness that the coalition is in need of support at the present time. Would it not be in their own interests to show good will and to show that they are cognisant of people’s feelings and do not want them to feel offended? Would it not, for a small cost, be better if the Government supported, or accepted, this amendment, which might do them some good electorally? You never know.
Lord Brett
My Lords, Amendment 1 was not moved not because the Minister convinced me in Committee of her arguments on cost and complexity. The complexity seemed to be manufactured and the cost involved figures that I could not recognise; nor could anybody else who studied it, given that banks issue cards every day of the week gratis and do not expect it to cost a tremendous amount of money. On the other hand, I was convinced by the noble Baroness’s determination not to move on the issue and not least by the discourtesy shown—not that I blame the Minister for this, because she has always been courteous. But I asked two questions in Committee and I did not get the courtesy of an answer. I indicated that I was happy to accept the answer betwixt then and Report. I asked whether the Government had consulted the Government of Gibraltar, who issue travel cards and replace them at very little expense for the same kind of number as the 12,000 that have been issued in this country to people who are not airside workers. I also asked how many ID cards from different countries were accepted by the UK Immigration Service at British ports and airports. I did not get an answer to that, either.
But those unanswered questions were not what determined me not to move Amendment 1. I thought that the moral high ground was rather greater on Amendment 2 than on Amendment 1. Amendment 1, although it was justified in my view, would have applied to a number of the 12,000 people and it would have pre-empted consideration of Amendment 2. Amendment 2 applies to everybody who voluntarily applied for a card, meaning that they at least would have the consolation of the restoration of the money they paid. For me the most telling argument for why this should happen concerns the impact assessment that the Government carried out. The civil servants who drew up that impact assessment put as the case for refunds that a non-refund would mean a reputational loss to the Government—a reputational loss for the sake of £400,000. I said in Committee and I say it again: the reputation of any democratic Government in this country, of whatever source, colour and coalition, has to be worth £400,000. It is de minimis in departmental budget terms and infinitesimal in national budget terms, but not to those 12,000 people, many of whom are elderly or very young. Business people might use the card for travel, young people would like the card because it would get them into places where they needed to carry their passports, such as clubs and pubs where they had to prove their age, and elderly people could use it as a travel document although it was also a document of some cost.
It seemed to me that the Minister was saying that if you are wealthy enough that £30 does not matter, you will not complain. Ipso facto, if you are poor and you do not complain, you will suffer in silence. Again, for the sake of £400,000, 12,000 people who voluntarily believed the Government of the day are being betrayed by the Government that followed them. I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships’ House or the other place can sit easy when this happens and we have the opportunity with this amendment to remedy it.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I am equally concerned that for the sake of a very small amount of money the Government are taking this intransigent attitude. That is assuming that 12,000 people will be seeking £30. I very much doubt whether everybody who has paid their £30 will in fact be doing so, so the sum is probably rather less than the noble Lord, Lord Brett, was talking about. I wondered, as a sort of compromise, whether it would not be possible for those who had paid their £30 to be allowed to offset it against the cost of their next passport so that the cost of their passport is reduced by that amount. That might in some way alleviate this disheartening feeling that everybody seems to have about this rather abrupt and unfair arrangement.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
What is being done here is to deprive the identity card of value by the main provisions of this Bill. For the people who have paid for the card that is something that we really have to take into account, having regard to the Government’s situation at the time they took out the card. I suggest to my noble friend that this matter should be subject to further consideration. There is an opportunity to do that if my noble friend is willing.
The Earl of Erroll
I spoke on this matter in Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, because I see that the card could still have some use. Although the national identity register, which is what we all objected to, has been removed, having a bit of plastic as a travel document to get around Europe would have been useful and still might be. Some of the 12,000 people concerned bought the card for that. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I certainly think that those people who thought that they had bought a plastic passport should be allowed to offset it against the cost of getting the more expensive passport that they will now require to go to Europe. For them, it was effectively a cheap way of getting a passport if you needed to travel to Europe.
We penalise insurance salesmen for being more honest than this. The Government are guilty of misselling. They went out and sold the card hard as having lots of benefits, and so people took it up. If you expect a member of the public, seven months ahead of the general election, to be able to predict its outcome, there are a lot of geniuses among the public whom we ought immediately to recruit to become pollsters. They may be all the people who did not buy the card. To me, it looks vindictive and nothing else. This matter could be a PR negative for the Government—a little spark that could catch the newspapers’ imagination. They will find someone who feels really hard done-by. It will get blown up; it will be in the Daily Mail, which will say that something must be done about it, but it will be too late by then.
I know that civil servants will produce reasons for the refund being difficult to administer et cetera. I cannot see the problem in saying, “The only people who get refunded are those who turn up with a card. If you hand in a card, you get 30 quid”. It would be as simple as that. That would not be very expensive to administer. If the Government wished to give the contract to one of the large systems integrators, however, they would end up with a bill for about £5 million, because it is their job to make sure that partners in America are well satisfied with lots of dosh. They are the people whom the Government will have to pay at the end of all this. They will have had unbreakable contracts, so they will have to be paid several million pounds for breaking the contract. A large slice of that will end up in American partners’ pockets. The poor old citizens of this country will get absolutely—I will use unparliamentary language if I go on.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and said so in Committee, that this is an expropriation of property, or certainly property rights. Even if the card belongs to the Government and is non-transferable, that card gave you rights—that is what they sold it on. I am quite sure that that is expropriation and that there could be a claim under the ECHR. It will go on top of the Digital Economy Act, which we were advising the Government against the other day. So they will have a nice time in the courts.
If I had been lucky enough to get a card, I would have kept it as a collector’s item, but I know that a lot of people would not like to do so and would like their 30 quid back. They are better Scotsmen than me.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I share the disquiet of many who have already spoken. I urge the Government to think again about this.
Lord Deben
Perhaps I might concentrate on why people bought the card in the place. If they bought it, as it seems, for a purpose, and that purpose no longer obtains, there is no doubt that we are taking away something from them. Surely, therefore, the answer is not to recompense them but to enable them to continue for the period of the card’s validity to be able to do what it is they bought the card for in the first place. That is a sensible and proper way of doing it. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay—though I may express myself in less elevated language—I feel that the public have every reason to believe that, if they buy something from the Government for a period of time, they should be able to continue to use it in that way. Whereas recompense is an expensive and untidy way of doing it, I really do not see why they cannot go on using it for the time that they were supposed to use it for.
Baroness Hamwee
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for interrupting him. I think that the technical term for what was going on around here is “kerfuffle”.
I will not pretend that I have not been troubled by this issue. I am not persuaded by arguments that members of the public should have read the manifestos, certainly not in the detail that might have been expected, nor that they could have predicted the outcome of the general election. I am being told that everybody should have been reading the manifestos, but we leave it to the press to summarise them. However, the debate in Committee was about fine detail in the manifestos, and I do not think that that should be used as the basis—certainly not the only basis—for the Government’s argument.
My view is that this issue is finely balanced between taxpayers and individual cardholders. It is not the same as a consumer situation where there are two parties, the supplier of goods and the purchaser of goods. There are three parties, and the third party is the taxpayer. I understand the point that this is a comparatively small sum of money, but comparatively small sums have more value than they did a year or two ago.
The point has been made about whether this would be expropriation. That point was not taken up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. No doubt the Minister will say something about that. I hope, too, that she will say what would be required if the cards were to go on having a use. As I understand it, it would still be necessary to retain the register. Otherwise, the cards are pieces of plastic that do not relate to anything. Quite apart from our objection to the offensiveness of the register, the cost and perhaps the confusion of retaining the register would be issues.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, I am sorry to speak from this side against the clause, but I believe that it is morally indefensible. It is not just that it is a small sum of money, so it is particularly stupid not to pay it, but, as has been said, this sort of thing does the Government—any Government, those of the ruling political class—absolutely no good. The public will say, “They are just not to be trusted. They just can’t do things fairly”. Whoever was the civil servant and others who put up the suggestion that this money should not be compensated or that the card should not be used, I beg them to think again. We really cannot endorse something as shabby as this.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I have taken no part in the debates concerning the Bill. Indeed, when I came in here this afternoon, I did not think I was going to take part in it today. However, I have listened to this debate and I find myself in total agreement with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It seems to me that, from looking at this as objectively as one can, this is an issue about the continuity of government. The identity cards were not sold on the basis of, “You are buying it from a Labour Government, but if another one come in, things may change and you may have to renegotiate it”. The contract—if it was a formal contract—was with the Government, and it is the Government who are now reneging on the contract. I feel very uneasy about it and I hope the Minister will take this back and have another look at it. It is interesting, listening to this debate, that the only person, I think, who has suggested that what the Government are proposing should take place was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Everybody else seems unanimously against the Government’s position. There is a famous dictum about a hole—I do not need to repeat it. This seems to be an occasion when the Government should think very hard.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I would like to raise a further issue which relates to the wording of the amendment. It requires the surrender of the ID card for there to be a reimbursement of £30. There may well be a category of person who would like the £30 back and feel entitled in law to get the £30 back but who actually wants to keep their ID card. Of course, there is a further issue here, which may have struck a number of us. With only 12,000 or so cards in circulation, the residual value of the identity card in future might well be a great deal higher than £30. So the question may arise of how many people with an eye to the future would be keen to get that £30 back now but to retain their identity card. Some further examination of these and other issues might be helpful.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I recognise the strength of sentiment expressed on all sides of the House. If the House will permit, I shall explain why I cannot accept the amendment.
The Government set out at an early stage that they would not continue with this legislation and that they would repeal the Bill. That has been the long-standing position of the Government, well known in advance. It is fair to say that the Government made their position known on the fact that the ID cards would no longer have any validity.
The Earl of Erroll
Excuse me, but that was the opinion of the Opposition at the time, not of the Government.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The noble Earl is quite right. It has always been the intention, whether in opposition or in government, to scrap the ID cards scheme at the least possible extra cost to the taxpayer. Our primary purpose has been to prevent further expense being incurred when we can avoid it. We have no option but to pay compensation to some contractors because we are tied in by the contracts negotiated by our predecessors. That is a contractual agreement, and we are negotiating at the moment what that final sum should be. We do not agree that there is a contract between the Government and cardholders who received a service, nor do we believe that there is any expropriation of property or rights under it. The cardholders are not card-owners; the noble Lords who said that the card was government property were quite right to say so.
Lord Maxton
I hear what the noble Baroness has just said about the card being government property. Is she saying, therefore, that it would be illegal for a person who had that card to use it in any way for identity purposes? In other words, if a young person was asked for ID in a pub who still had their ID card, if they produced their ID card would they be committing an offence by using a government document?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think not, any more than if one uses a passport for that purpose, which is also a government document. The basis is the same.
Lord Maxton
But the passport is being retained. It is still going to be a legal document, whereas presumably the ID card, once it is abolished, ceases to be one.
Baroness Neville-Jones
If it is a valid document, it can be used validly for identity. If it is an invalid or cancelled document, obviously it no longer has any legal status.
The Earl of Erroll
Under Clause 6 about the possession of false identity documents, does the ID card once it has been revoked become a false identity document? That was the point that the noble Lord was making. It is government property and it is no longer an identity document, so in using it you are probably using a false identity document.
Baroness Neville-Jones
You are certainly no longer using a valid identity document. It is not any longer valid in law.
The Identity and Passport Service has estimated that the cost of cancelling the ID cards scheme and the national identity register will be up to £5 million. This includes an estimated figure for compensation to the contractors, which I have just mentioned, destruction costs, staffing and other administrative matters. They are all necessary costs that we cannot avoid in abolishing the scheme. A refund scheme would add 10 per cent to that cost, which we do not consider to be a trivial addition.
Noble Lords have talked about principle. One can look at that in several ways. One of the principles that seems to be on offer this afternoon is that one set of taxpayers should refund another set of taxpayers. This does not seem to be a sensible arrangement. Some say that the sum is only about £400,000—one of the noble Lords mentioned that sum—the inference being that in the grand scheme of things this is entirely insignificant. Certainly, compared with the cost of the ID card scheme that has already been paid out—over £290 million—another half a million pounds might not seem significant. That is not, I am afraid, the attitude that the coalition Government take to public spending. We have demonstrated that we have a commitment to ensuring that unnecessary and unjustifiable expenditure is stopped and that we focus on delivering more for less. We are not therefore in a position to offer this refund.
Lord Soley
I am listening with some puzzlement. I am not a lawyer, but the Minister has signed off this Bill as being compatible with the convention on human rights. Yet this identity document is the possession of the Government—it is a government-owned thing—and she is confiscating it without compensation. Would it not be wise to take legal advice as to whether she would face a legal challenge if she went ahead with this?
Baroness Neville-Jones
As I have just said, we do not believe that we are expropriating anybody of their rights. If this is challenged in the courts we will obviously defend that position.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
May I follow that point? The Minister has made the proposition that there is no right in contract by the cardholders and no expropriation. On the assumption that no advice has been obtained from the law officers on these matters, would it be prudent before the next stage of the Bill to obtain such advice?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I will confirm the advice that I have received.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am not sure that I can confirm that. I will seek to do so before Third Reading.
We should not exaggerate the significance of all this. Much has been made of the elderly and the very young. We have no reliable demographic information at all on who the purchasers were. We know that 3,000 of the 15,000 were given free to airside workers for a particular purpose.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Baroness is getting into the complexities and numbers of this. Is this not a matter of simple principle, irrespective of numbers? If the noble Baroness buys a good or a service and the merchant or other supplier who sells that to her fails to deliver it, she would feel cheated. If that merchant got away with it, she would feel that that undermined the good faith on which the economy and society depend. Is it not a fact that people have in good faith bought a service for 10 years, and after a matter of months, that service is being unilaterally withdrawn? Are people who have done that not entitled to feel thoroughly cheated? Is this not a disgraceful example for a Government of this country to give?
Baroness Neville-Jones
The point I was answering before noble Lords intervened was the inference somehow that we are inflicting great hardship on cardholders. We do not believe this to be the case.
We do not believe that the statutory basis of the issue of ID cards creates a contract or anything akin to a contract in relations between the Secretary of State and the cardholder. Remedies that would be available in the courts if the contract were governed by the law of contract or consumer legislation—which I think is the point raised by the noble Lord—is not available for identity cards.
One or two noble Lords have raised the issue of compromise and of whether it would be a good idea to have one. Could we not, for instance, set the cost of this against the cost of the next passport or, indeed, use the lifetime for which the present card was available? There are associated problems. I do not want to detain the House extensively on this, but the fact of the matter is that the two databases—that is to say, the identity register and the passport database—are not the same. They contain different information, issued for different purposes; their legislative frameworks for what you pay are also different. We cannot therefore simply transfer the one across from the other.
That construction of two differently governed databases with different information on them was the construction of the legislation put through by our predecessors. Unfortunately, in addition to that we are going to destroy the database. We would otherwise have the continuing cost of maintaining it. That is why it cannot be regarded as a valid document for its lifetime; there is nothing behind it against which anybody needing to check your identity would validly be able so to do. There is a problem in that it simply is not a useful document any longer.
Lord Deben
I understand that there may be technical reasons why my proposal does not work, but surely they do not apply to the question of a passport. If you sent your form in, it would be quite clear from all the other documents that that little card was for the same person who sent in the form. You do not have to look it up on the two databases; you just know that that is one of the cases in which they could have £30 off. I do not see that that costs anything at all.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am sorry; I thought that the noble Lord was suggesting that this card should be available for use during its previously indicated lifetime. It is of course a separate issue as to whether you could ask for a refund. There are many problems about the refund issue, one of which is that we would have to verify whether the person presenting a card was actually entitled to that refund, which would mean referring to the database. We would have to notify everybody. The costs involved—
Lord Filkin
I will be brief. There are times when we have to look at Civil Service advice, good and honest though it is, and apply a political judgment to it. Sometimes it is clear that, in terms of both the justice of the case and the political risk and pain of humiliation, we have to override Civil Service advice. To avoid further pain and agony to the House and to the Minister, I urge her to withdraw and say that she will look at this again.
Lord Higgins
In answer to an earlier intervention regarding the position of the law officers, my noble friend said that she would look at that and return to it on Third Reading. Since it would be helpful to have the law officers’ advice, which at the moment we do not have, would there not be a strong case for deferring this matter until Third Reading, at which point it would be clear?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I said that I will indeed confirm the advice that we have received on the legal aspects.
I want to make one final point before concluding: I am not sure whether the concern which has been expressed in this House is entirely shared by the public. Much has been made of public attitudes but, against the background of 15,000 cards having been taken out, we in the Government have received a grand total of 297 letters on the subject, of which 122 included complaints about refunds. That is 122 against 15,000. We should bear in mind that that is against the background of sending letters to all individuals who had taken out a card when we came into office, so one cannot say that they were uninformed about what was going to happen—that they would not be receiving a refund, because that is what we told them. That letter is also in the Library. So—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I regret interrupting the Minister again but it really is crucial, if I may say so, for her to draw a distinction between information given to people before they purchased their cards and information given to people after they purchased their cards. Therefore, I hope that she will not lay any stress at all on what she has just said.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I understand that difference. I am saying that all 15,000 cardholders were informed specifically and in terms that these cards would be withdrawn, that they would not be valid thereafter and that there would be no refund. We have had 122 letters of complaint, not necessarily all of them from actual cardholders. I do not think that that indicates a very high level of concern about £30. One has to take into account—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The House is listening with some incredulity to the defence the Minister is making of a mere £400,000 recompense. Today, the Chancellor has assured the Irish Government that he will give them £7 billion of support and here we are in the House of Lords talking about recompensing British people £400,000. It is complete and utter nonsense, if I may say so to the noble Baroness. For her own sake and for the sake of the Government, will she not at least say to the movers of this amendment and to the House, “I have listened to what you say, I will take the matter away and reconsider it and we can come back to it at Third Reading”?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, support for the Irish Government, the national interest, the economic prosperity of this country and the welfare of Ireland are quite different matters. I do not think that we can ignore the very low level of public interest in and reaction to the Government’s decision. The House should take note of that. I have tried to deal with compromises. They do not work; otherwise one might be able to do something in that respect.
I ought to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brett. I apologise to him that he did not receive an answer earlier. We have not consulted the Government of Gibraltar, who issue their cards in a rather different way. The Identity and Passport Service is not able to answer that question directly. The UKBA is the agency which sees the documents of EU cardholders. We will have to get further information on that point, which I will endeavour to do for the noble Lord.
In light of the views that have been expressed in the House this afternoon, I propose to take this amendment away and consider it.
The Earl of Erroll
Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she guarantee to come back with an amendment along the lines of recompensing people? On two occasions the Government have promised to take a proposal of mine away—this Bill has only one more stage—but at Third Reading have weaselled out of it at the last minute. Under the rules governing Third Reading, we are not able to put down anything at that stage to ensure that the Government come back with something, so we need a binding commitment from the Government to come back with an amendment along the lines of this one. If the Government will not give such a commitment, we should not permit the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I see the position in which my noble friend finds herself. I respectfully submit to the House that it would be perfectly reasonable for her to ask that this matter be postponed to Third Reading so that she has an opportunity of conveying to her colleagues—because the Government as a whole are involved here—the sentiments that have been very clearly expressed in your Lordships' House. She has explained the reasons for the Government's position. However, a great deal has been said here and I submit that the Government have an opportunity to reconsider. If the Opposition are anxious to achieve fairness and justice, I am sure that this is the correct course, rather than seeking to take the matter further at this juncture—if my noble friend is prepared to take this back, to have it considered by her colleagues in government and to return at Third Reading and tell us what the situation is.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I will pick up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. It might help the House if my noble friend were to say that the Government would have no objection to similar amendments being tabled again at Third Reading, so that the matter could be deliberately left open to be considered again then.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I say to the government Front Bench that we are out of order. It is the job of the Front Bench on the government side to make sure that we keep to order.
Baroness Neville-Jones
Perhaps I may just say that I have undertaken to take the point away. I have done so in good faith and noble Lords may rely on my good faith.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I say to the Minister that her good faith is not at issue at all. The issue is whether it is possible under the rules of the House to bring back at Third Reading an amendment that has been moved on Report. I would like advice from the Clerk because, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I do not think that that is within the rubric of the House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It is not me to give this advice, except in response to what my noble friend has asked. However, as I understand it, it is certainly within the rules of the House to bring back the matter at Third Reading if it has not been decided before that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I understand that there are anxieties around the House. The House is self-regulating, unlike another place, and some noble Lords today have been venting the habits of another place.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there have been interventions on Report that have not been in the customary style that we have had in the past. There are Third Reading rules that enable the Government to clarify remaining uncertainties. Where a Minister has in good faith given an undertaking to take away a matter and look at it again, they are able to do so and bring it back at Third Reading. The Minister may also have discussions with opposition and other Peers on how best to deliver that. Certainly, I would be prepared to take further advice between now and Third Reading to enable my noble friend to carry out her commitment. Of course, it is for those who tabled the amendment to decide how they wish to proceed today. My noble friend has given a commitment to look at the matter again. I know that she has also given a commitment to reflect on particular advice. That is where we have reached.
Third Reading guidance is straightforward. Paragraph 8.145 of the Companion states:
“The practice of the House is normally to resolve major points of difference by the end of report stage, and to use third reading for tidying up the Bill ... The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are … to clarify any remaining uncertainties … to improve the drafting … and to enable the government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill”.
In response to my noble friend Lord Phillips, that means that my noble friend has given an undertaking, as she has today, to look at this matter again. She will do so. She does not, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, requires, have to give a commitment today as to the precise amendment that may or may not be brought forward. These are the normal rules of procedure.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
My Lords, with respect we are faced with an issue of law—
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness has said on this matter, and I am in some difficulty because the noble Baroness and I are now the usual channels. There are no longer three; there are two of us. The noble Baroness will know that we have met on many occasions to discuss whether it is in order for noble Lords to table an amendment at Third Reading that was previously moved in Committee and on Report. We need something rather clearer than we have had so far this afternoon. We need an assurance that if this matter cannot be resolved to our satisfaction—and I think that the House is very much behind the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt—then we can bring back precisely this amendment so that this House can quite properly determine this issue on the terms in which it has been set out this afternoon for the benefit of your Lordships.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, this is a matter for resolution in the normal manner, which is that usual channels discuss these issues. I understand, as Government Chief Whip, that it would be appropriate for the Opposition to bring forward an amendment if they felt that the government amendment or failure to act was inappropriate. These are the matters that are discussed in the usual manner; as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, says, we have had these discussions in the past. It may perhaps assist the House to recall that over the last few months the Public Bill Office has on two occasions advised Opposition Members that they may table Third Reading amendments to take forward matters that have been debated on previous occasions. We do enjoy a fair amount of latitude—I say fair because it is fair to all—within the overall context that Third Reading is not intended to open new issues.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have heard with a great deal of interest the comments from the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Government Chief Whip and the Minister. This matter has been aired at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and now on Report; this is the third time we have debated these issues. While great eloquence has been brought to our debates, no new argument has been brought. The noble Baroness has said, finally, at the end of a long debate—and I suspect rather reluctantly—that she will take it back to look at again. Frankly, in view of the debate, that is not good enough: it is quite clear that the House requires the Government to change their mind. Not much purpose is served by yet more agonising. The House is quite prepared to come to a view and I wish to test its opinion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Report on costs and savings
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 4 months of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament a report setting out the costs and savings associated with cancelling ID cards.
(2) The report laid under subsection (1) must, in particular, specify—
(a) the costs associated with cancelling all ID cards and sending letters to cardholders under section 2(3),(b) the costs associated with destroying information in the National Identity Register under section 3, and(c) any savings identified as a result of cancelling ID cards and destroying information in the National Identity Register.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the amendment is fairly straightforward, and I hope that it will be seen as a much-needed addition to the Bill. Conservative shadow Ministers when in opposition made varying claims about the current cost of the ID card scheme which ranged widely from nearly £1 billion to up to £20 billion. Meanwhile, the National Identity Service cost report of October 2009—the official document laid before Parliament under the terms of the Identity Cards Act 2006—stated that the projected forward cost of providing ID cards for the next 10 years until 2019 was £835 million. Crucially, that figure does not equate to the savings to be made from scrapping the scheme. We know that because we read the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, which states at the bottom of page 4:
“The October 2009 cost report indicated that cancellation of ID cards would avoid future costs of £835 million up to October 2019. However, these costs are planned to be recovered through future fees to ID card purchases. Therefore, there are no benefits to the taxpayer from Year 3 onwards”.
The tables included in the impact assessment reveal that total savings from scrapping the scheme are £118 million. The total cost of cancelling the ID cards and the NIR are given as £22 million, although the Bill’s Explanatory Notes state the cost to be £55 million. There appears to be a muddle and the Government have been rather misleading to claim the scale of the savings that they have done. A definitive, preferably independently audited cost and saving report would be desirable and it would be appropriate for it to be part of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter as sympathetically as she can.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The Government certainly agree that it is important that we are open and transparent about costs and savings. Ministers have set out the level of costs, both in the debate here and in the other place. Clearly, the Opposition do not entirely agree with our figures, but we have set out the costs and savings as we see them and as they are expected to be over the spending period. We also agree that it is important that these are set out in an accountable and auditable form and that is why we are including the costs and savings associated with scrapping the ID card scheme in the annual report and accounts—we have already undertaken to do this—which will be submitted to the House of Commons by the chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service.
Noble Lords will be aware that the annual report and accounts are presented to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 7 of the 2000 Act and they are published by the House of Commons. The accounts are aimed at being published in advance of the Summer Recess. If one looks at the noble Lord’s amendment, one can see that the timings are such that we would be invited to publish the same information twice over a very short time. I do not think that that makes a great deal of sense.
I can confirm to your Lordships that there will be a full and transparent breakdown of the costs and savings related to ID cards in the IPS annual report and accounts for the next year and that these will cover the points raised in the amendment so that there will be complete clarity on the points that noble Lords have raised. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am grateful to the Minister. She has said that the details that I require will be published and I am very happy to accept that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Rosser
“Identity fraud
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006 on combating identity fraud and the lessons learnt from the operation of the identity cards scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament within one year of the coming into force of this Act.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this amendment calls on the Government to produce a report on the impact of the repeal of the Identity Cards Act on combating identity fraud and on the lessons learnt from the operation of the scheme. Identity fraud is one of the UK’s fastest growing crimes, with nearly 2 million people a year falling victim, and figures suggest it costs the country some £2.7 billion a year. More than nine out of 10 people in the UK consider themselves to be at risk from identity fraud. According to the Government’s own fraud prevention service, in the first three quarters of this year, levels of identity fraud increased by almost 10 per cent when compared with the same period in 2009 to nearly 80,000 cases. Any Government obviously have a duty to address this concern and to obtain whatever information is available to ensure that they have an up-to-date and coherent plan for action in this area.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I wonder if, when he comes to wind up, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, could be a little more explicatory—for want of a better word—on the meaning of Amendment 4. Presumably, he is talking about the costs and savings incurred. We have just had a very long debate on the subject—
Lord Rosser
We are not actually on Amendment 4. I have been speaking to Amendment 5.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could confirm that he would be happier—I am not quite sure that I took this from his speech—for such lessons as there may be from a relatively short and limited experience to be included in the wider work that the Government are doing. Of course, one would not disagree that any available lessons should be learnt; but I doubt whether that work is as useful to Parliament if it is provided separately and discreetly from other work being done on cyber crime and related areas. It is an enormously important area and Parliament will look forward to debating it further. I am not convinced that this is precisely the way to go.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, at Second Reading of this Bill, I suggested that, while at the moment an identity card would not help to stop fraud on the internet, it will come. There will eventually come a point when, in view of the rising number of people purchasing goods and services online, the banks and the people selling goods will insist that there is some form of identity involved in the transaction. Whether it will be putting a card into your computer or a camera that will show that you actually are the person, I do not know, but I would think the banks in particular will insist on this in the longer run, both for their own hole-in-the-wall cash machines and for buying online. The ID card, as it was originally proposed, if it had been made compulsory from the word go, as I wanted it to be, would have been one of the answers to that and would have saved the private sector very considerable sums of money in the long run.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I fully understand the sentiment behind this, but I am not sure this is the best way to go. I do not think it is really the Home Office’s forte to produce such a report. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; there are a lot of lessons to be learnt and a lot of people studying this sort of thing. As for the figures used by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—and taking the point just made about the banks—that is the whole point. People confuse theft of credit card details with identity theft. Identity theft is when someone’s identity is taken over and used to do many other things, such as entering into contracts, travelling across borders and perpetrating crimes. Nicking a credit card and its details is something completely different. Those provide the huge figures, and the people who can stop that are the banks and the credit card companies by increasing their security. They are always looking at this, and they are trading off between the losses they make on transactions where cards are not present, and the cost of additional security. We are seeing new security measures coming through, but it is not a government job. There is no point at which you would take a national identity card that is not designed for online transactions, and a credit card that at the moment is not designed for them, and hope that one is going to help with the other. Actually, the entire problem about security for the credit card is contained there, and the people know what to do about it. They are getting on with it rather slowly to my mind, but when the fraud figures get big enough they will do something about it. I agree there are lessons to be learnt, but I do not think it is an identity card lesson. There are some other lessons to be learnt, but I think that there are other bodies better qualified to do the job than the Home Office writing expensive reports.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raises two issues. He spoke to the first issue as regards combating identity fraud and the effect of the repeal. He did not really mention the second, which would require us to write reports on the operation of the identity card scheme. I will deal with both those matters because, if the amendment were accepted, they would be obligations on the Government.
I very much support the notion that what we do in government should be evidence-based, but I do not think that trying to draw lessons from a scheme of such narrow scope and numbers, as well as short duration, will help us a great deal in what are, without doubt, serious issues. One can draw a number of lessons about the operation of the scheme itself, but I do not know that they would cast much light of a general kind on how to operate identity schemes in the future. Frankly, the Government’s view is that this is not a worthwhile thing for us to try to do.
We entirely agree that combating fraud is a major issue. There is no argument between us on that. That is precisely why the Home Office is taking it very seriously in conjunction with other departments. The National Fraud Authority and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have, as I mentioned in Committee, produced a strategic threat assessment of the harm and the impact of identity fraud. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that identity is an issue and we certainly will have to do work on identity authentication. That would have been the case even with the NIR.
These assessments are now being taken as the base for an action plan, which I also mentioned in Committee. I hope that the House will accept that it would not be sensible for us to publish the details of the action plan, which is designed to try to get at the root of those who are engaged in criminal and fraudulent activity. But I can assure the House that we are taking this issue seriously.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said. It worries me that the Home Office seems to be considering another form of identity card. I sincerely hope that we will not have another proposal for a national identity card and register by the back door.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am not quite sure how the noble Lord gained that impression. All I said, I think, was that identity authentication, which is not anything like the identity card, is an issue. If you have a transaction with the bank, it does not know who you are, and you want to know who they are.
Lord Maxton
Does the noble Baroness not agree, however, that an identity card would be the easiest way of authenticating identity?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think that this is a debate perhaps of a more expert kind, but I do not agree that that is the case. I should like to make one other point on combating fraud. We also said in Committee that we would review whether there was overlap or duplication of the offences which are being re-enacted as a result of this Bill with those in the existing Fraud Act 2006. We are looking also at the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in an exercise to make sure that the legislation is tidy and, if we can, to simplify it. Both on the legislative front and on the question of actual action in government to combat fraud, vigorous action is being taken. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
Obviously, the reason for bringing forward this amendment relates to the evidence given in Committee in the other place. One of the organisations that had had most involvement with the identity cards scheme—the pilot carried out with the Manchester Airports Group—clearly referred to the benefits of the scheme with regard to identity. Quite relevantly, it said it thought that, even if identity cards were no longer there, perhaps the benefits that it had seen arising from the scheme could be achieved through other means. In the light of that kind of evidence, I should have thought that the Government would have been interested in the impact of the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006 and of trying to ensure that the benefits that at least some of those involved in the pilot exercise saw coming from it could be retained through other means. I am a little disappointed that the Minister has not indicated that the Government intend to carry out any sort of investigation or review of the benefits that were achieved from it and of any benefits relating to the issue of identity fraud to see whether they could be maintained through other channels.
The part of the amendment about a report being required within one year is less important than actually looking at what happened with the identity card scheme and trying to ensure that any benefits that arose from it could be retained in other ways. I am very grateful for the interventions and contributions that have been made by noble Lords in this debate in which reference has been made to the problems of identity fraud. I think I am right in saying that there is a rollout of a new generation of identity documentation in Germany which will include a radio-frequency identity chip to help to facilitate, or so it is claimed, secure online transactions. I hope that as part of the action plan to which the Minister has referred that has been set up and is being developed that some regard will be paid to what is happening in Germany and whether that has a contribution to make in this field.
I am a little disappointed that the Minister, irrespective of the issue of the report, was not prepared to say that the Government would seek to take advantage, through an examination of what happened during the identity card scheme, of any contribution that could be made towards the fight against identity fraud and ensure that any benefits that the scheme had achieved were retained through other means. I am sorry that she has not been able to say that the Government will do that. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
“Independent review
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the coming into force of this Act, appoint an independent person to keep under review the arrangements for the time being maintained by the Secretary of State (and any person or authority to whom or to which he delegates any related function) for the purpose of his functions under this Act or any subordinate legislation made under it.
(2) The person so appointed shall report annually the findings of his review to the Secretary of State, with such report being made contemporaneously available to Parliament.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee. I bring it back and I hope that what my noble friend may have to say in response to my moving it will assuage the concerns that exist in this House about the dismantling of this complex scheme. Let us make no bones about it, the national identity register and all that is therewith and the dismantling of the whole apparatus is no simple matter, hence a 12-page Bill. The object of the exercise is to ensure that there should be an independent review to satisfy this place and the other place that all has been done properly and well, particularly of some of the subcontractors in relation to the national identity register and the deletion in a safe way of the mass of information that they already hold.
Clause 51 of the Data Protection Act 1998 imposes a general duty on the Information Commissioner to promote the eight data protection principles. They are all very sensible principles and the network of those eight principles provides reassurance that use of data is not improper. However, that is a general duty. There is no specific obligation that one can point to arising from those eight principles in terms of the national information register that we are dealing with here.
Those who have added their names to the amendment and, at an earlier stage, Earl Erroll—
Earl Ferrers
My noble friend referred to Earl Erroll. Actually, he should have said the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, but if he was going to say Earl Erroll, he ought to have said the Earl of Erroll.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am thoroughly schooled, my Lords, and deeply grateful to—I scarcely dare address him now—the noble Earl Ferrers.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Oh my gosh. I shall go back to school.
This is a basic and simple matter. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in response to the amendment.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the amendment may be slightly surprised to know that I support it, but for reasons that are rather different from those that he put before the House. A friend of mine described the Bill as the King Canute Bill; in other words, it is doing away with something—identity cards—which, in a relatively short time, whatever Government are in power, will have to be reintroduced. That is almost inevitable. I would hope that an appointed independent person would give that recommendation to the Government of the day and say, “Sorry, we have got it wrong. It is time that we reintroduced ID cards”. I agree entirely with my friend’s view, except that poor old King Canute is the most maligned man in English history, because he never suggested that he could hold back the tide. What he said to his courtiers was, “I cannot hold back the tide”. I suppose that it is the first example of PR going badly wrong.
There will come a point where the need for smart card technology will become such that we will have to introduce an identity cards Bill. This amendment would at least allow an independent person to look at it and say, “Sorry, we’ve got it wrong. Let’s have another look. Let’s introduce ID cards”.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, if I had got my act together a bit more quickly, I would have added my name to the amendment, because it is very sensible. There are some residual powers in the Bill which we need to keep an eye on. Although an Information Commissioner exists, he does not have the power to march in and look at things unless there are complaints. He would also be overextended.
We need to look out for residual powers that could give rise to concern. They come in Clause 10. Subsections (8) and (9) sensibly state that certain information which is gathered to prove someone’s identity when a passport is being issued should be destroyed after 28 days. Given that the Government will destroy the information within 28 days, I am happy for them to consult other databases—I mentioned in Committee electricity bills, which is probably the quickest way of finding whether someone has changed address or where they really are. I have no problem with the Government doing that to verify a person’s identity for the purpose of producing a passport.
However, then we get to subsection (10), which is the good old catch-all. It says that the Government can retain the information beyond 28 days for the purpose of “preventing or detecting crime”—I remember this sort of wording in RIPA, which led to a lot of grief—and “apprehending and prosecuting offenders”. Well, that depends on how quickly they apprehend them again. We should have oversight by an outside commissioner who reports to Parliament and not by a Home Secretary, because this sort of thing can get out of hand and, later, suddenly rise up to bite a Government in the future. We have several commissioners doing this sort of job elsewhere in the security world. We either add it on to someone’s job or create another one, but it is sensible for protecting the public.
Baroness Hamwee
In Committee I raised the point on subsection (10) to which the noble Lord referred. Is it the noble Earl or the noble Lord?
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, it is the noble Earl. It is very confusing. I am actually the Earl of Erroll, but we are in distinguished company as we have two Earls who have surnames as their titles—Earl Ferrers and Earl Attlee. However, I would still refer to them as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Thank you very much for correcting the House on this.
Baroness Hamwee
In Committee I raised the issues on subsection (10) to which reference has just been made, and I did so for the same reasons—the concerns about, for instance, judicial oversight of a Secretary of State’s decision to retain information for these purposes. I was told then that subsection (10) reflects the provision in the Data Protection Act. I went away and looked at that, and I ought to say thank you. I was entirely happy that although the wording is a little different, it amounts to precisely the same thing. That is not to say that the issue is entirely satisfactorily dealt with. Perhaps it should be dealt with in a different way in this piece of legislation or, as I would like to see, more widely. However, I think that that is a different point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers, to our debates on—
Earl Ferrers
It is the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. For goodness’ sake, the noble Lord is still on the Front Bench. He really ought to get to know the rules and procedures of the House.
The Earl of Erroll
If noble Lords will indulge me for two seconds, the only person who is the exception here is the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Otherwise, we are all Lords and Ladies. We are Peers, so socially we refer to each other as Lord and Lady. Even a Baroness is a Lady, and we put the true title in front.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers—
Earl Ferrers
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is a very bright noble Lord, and he normally picks up things straight away, but he has made the mistake twice. If he wishes to refer to me as he should, he ought, with respect, to say “the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers” and not to say “the noble Lord, Earl Ferrers”.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, while we are in a correcting mood, may I remind the House that we are actually on Report and not in Committee, as amusing as the exchanges have been heretofore?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was quite right to correct us on this matter. I would however say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I have always referred to him in that manner. I will read Hansard with great interest, because I think that, when he rose, he actually said “the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers”. Perhaps we could reconvene tomorrow to discuss that further when we have all studied Hansard with great care.
We find ourselves in interesting company in this debate because noble Lords who have spoken have, very clearly, different views about ID cards. My noble friend Lord Maxton and I are convinced that, before long, a proposal will come from a Government to reintroduce identity cards on the basis of convenience to the public.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Before we forget, we need to remember that the ID system that we are abolishing was not obnoxious for the mere card; it was obnoxious for the national identity register which carried a mass of personal information and which Microsoft reckoned would become the greatest honey pot in the world for crime.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I shall make two points about that. First, I fully understand the point that the noble Lord is raising. It is quite remarkable that we have reached a situation in which private sector companies such as Google are allowed to amass a massive amount of information and then use it for marketing purposes. Frankly, I have some concerns about that. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The fact of the matter is, as the noble Lord must know, a lot of the material gathered by Google has been gathered illegally. I do not think that the point that he is making in quoting Google is a very good one.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I look forward to further debates on those matters. The noble Lord is quite right. I hope that your Lordships' House will have further opportunities to discuss the implications of that, because it is a matter of great concern. There are some international companies that seem to feel that they can do what they like, and there is a need for this to be looked at very carefully. I understand the concerns about Governments amassing data. Equally, I refer the noble Lord to Mr Hodder, who wrote to me before Grand Committee, as an example of a business person who has used his card 30 times in going to the European zone and found it very convenient. For that reason, I do not think that we have heard the last word about the use of such cards.
I hope that the Minister considers taking this matter away. Whatever view noble Lords take of what the last Government did and of the nature of the cards and the information, it is rightly important that the public have confidence that the process used is done properly and well, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. The BBC carried a very interesting story about some of the techniques that will be used to ensure that the information is appropriately destroyed. I welcome that, but it would be helpful—and it is an important matter of public confidence—to have a proper independent scrutiny of this matter, which is why I very much support the noble Lord in his amendment.
Baroness Neville-Jones
Two separate issues seem to have been debated under this amendment. The first was whether one needs the extraordinary amount of information that would have been contained on the national identity register as a means of establishing ID cards, and whether that is the kind of thing that we want to see reintroduced, which I certainly do not believe to be the case. The second issue, which is the proper intention of the amendment, is about ensuring that information retained by the Government is properly governed and accountable. On that second point, I share absolutely the preoccupations of those who have proposed the amendment, but I have reservations about the method that they have chosen to achieve the end. In effect, the amendment establishes a new individual—some sort of passport commissioner—who would have the job of overseeing how the data were used and retained by the IPS. That would also be the case in connection with information received by third parties for the validation of passport applications.
In our view, the Information Commissioner has significant powers, and we would regard them as sufficient to examine and consider or scrutinise any of the data processed within the IPS. I think that the noble Lord has had a conversation with the Information Commissioner to that effect. My impression of the Information Commissioner is that he takes a considerable interest in the operation of the Act and has powers to serve the IPS with a notice to allow him, or his staff, to find out whether the IPS is complying with the Data Protection Act, which is the governing Act here. He is able to oblige the IPS to allow him or his staff to enter any premises and to show any of the specified documents or to see any of the information of the specified descriptions that he wishes to inspect.
Those are very considerable powers. I share the preoccupation of the House in ensuring that Government retain information only for the purposes for which it is genuinely needed and they are governed in ways which ensure that that is the case—that it is not used for purposes for which it was not specified and for which the Government are not entitled to use it. It is important for us to ensure that this is the case, and to talk to the Information Commissioner to ensure that he is able and willing to exercise his powers in this way, which I believe to be the case. I ask the noble Lord if on that basis, and with an assurance from the Government that we will take the intent of this amendment seriously, he is willing to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister has said. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but would she keep us informed about the conversations she intends to have with the Information Commissioner? Could she assure us of that?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Jones
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 October be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the UK Border Agency currently spends over £2 billion to manage its borders and control migration. Over a third of its total running costs is recovered through fees on visas, nationality and immigration applications. The remaining costs are met by the UK taxpayer. Clearly there is a balance between these two things to which I shall return.
Earlier this year the Chancellor set out in his emergency Budget the position of the nation’s finances, which revealed the very difficult choices that had to be made by government departments. Of course the decision to increase the fees is relevant to the background and the economic situation which we were left by our predecessors. The decision has been taken to take the UK Border Agency into the new spending review period in a position where more is done to balance the costs of supporting the immigration system between those who use and benefit directly from it and the UK taxpayer, who is otherwise obliged to subsidise it.
The Home Office is making savings of £367 million this year. The proposals we are debating today form the other part of the equation—that is to say, seeking to increase fees paid by migrants and sponsors.
The regulations are made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and are in accordance with the powers granted in Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Under Section 42, the Secretary of State can set a fee for an application at a level that exceeds the administrative cost of determining the application. The way in which the legal powers are defined means that the Government must also specify fees for applications, processes and services that are provided at or below the administrative cost of determining the application, in separate regulations under the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. These regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 September 2010, are subject to the negative process and are not being debated. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes things a little complicated and I am happy to take the points that may be raised today on any of the fees proposals.
For these mid-year increases, the UK Border Agency has undertaken very careful consideration of the issues. These increases are made in line with the principle that the overall contribution of fee increases should be spread across all routes and be in line with our broader policy to align better our fees structure overseas with the one operating in the United Kingdom. Where there are greater increases to the fees on some routes than others, we have done so on the basis of the benefit to the migrant of a successful application. Examples of benefit vary from route to route but may include, for instance, access to the UK labour market, the right to stay here permanently or the right to vote.
These increases mean that the Government can hold other fees at existing levels, or increase them only by a comparatively small amount to help maintain our international competitiveness and in recognition of the importance of these routes to the UK economy. For example, the Government recognise the importance of keeping direct costs to sponsors under the points-based system as low as possible, particularly in the current economic climate. The fees for acting as a sponsor and the certificate of sponsorship fee have been held at the same level as previously, while maintaining existing concessions for small businesses, charities, education providers and the arts and entertainment sectors.
In the same spirit, we have managed to limit the tier 4 visa increase to just £21, which is for a visa being offered below cost. It is a very small proportion of the overall costs incurred by a tier 4 student coming to the UK to study, who will pay an average tuition fee of close to £10,000 a year in higher education. The visitor visa has been increased by only £2. Tourism is obviously important to the UK economy, but it is right that the migrants contribute towards the costs of the services they use and benefit from. However, we have still kept it down and the fee recovers only about half of the total administrative cost of the visa.
The House will, I hope, be pleased to hear that these proposals also introduce a fee exemption where a person makes an application for a nationality registration relying on Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981. This will align better the position of those applicants born to British mothers with that of applicants born to British fathers. This is a long-standing grievance, which I have shared, and was a matter of great interest to this House. I hope that fulfilment of that commitment made by the previous Government gives satisfaction today.
This Government are committed to sending a message overseas that we welcome legal migrants and that the UK is open for business. I believe, as the Government believe, that migration brings great benefits to the UK. However, I also believe that UK citizens and newcomers to this country wish to see an immigration system in place that is sustainable and stronger in the future, and is less subsidised by the average taxpayer. The immigration system costs money and, through these proposals, the Government are seeking today a greater contribution, as I say, from those who benefit most—a little more in line with the benefits on offer—so that the traveller and migrant meet a greater proportion of the costs of the system. As your Lordships can see, we have tried to keep down the cost for those who receive comparatively little—the tourist and, indeed, the student—and put the increases primarily in those areas where there is long-term benefit for individuals who come to work or to settle here. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I rise to speak on the Motion as the regulations have a direct impact on a tiny company—on whose advisory board I sit—called Pingar UK, which is developing contextual search engine technology for a number of years. We are a subsidiary or offshoot of a New Zealand company that is funding the research and wanted to have a research establishment over here. This information is highly relevant as it will explain why this government policy is a disaster that will drive small companies such as Pingar offshore.
Tomorrow night, I will take part in a conference call with the New Zealand company in which we will almost certainly decide to move out of this country because of the immigration policy and the visa policy. A company employee took a degree at a Welsh university. He is a Hong Kong citizen. He obtained an 18-month postgraduate visa to do further development work, but that has expired. In the summer, we applied to get the visa extended, but we got caught up in the mish-mash of everything when the new immigration cap of 24,100 visas was suddenly introduced. We needed a certificate of sponsorship.
We got the certificate of sponsorship just in time, which was amazing since we employ hardly anyone over here and the chap in question will really be the first serious employee. That was the right thing to do. However, we were given a zero visa allocation. All the time that we put into the matter was completely wasted because we cannot sponsor him. We have now been told that, for £1,000, we might get a visa after all. The decision has been taken that, as a small business, we cannot afford to pay out £1,000 on a gamble. As another director of the company said, “It is a lottery”, so there is absolutely no point in doing it.
I am intrigued that the Explanatory Memorandum’s paragraph 11, “Regulating small business”, states:
“The legislation does not apply to small business”.
The very reason that we will have to relocate offshore is because, indirectly, the legislation does apply to small business. We will probably try to relocate the research arm in either Singapore or Hong Kong. Pingar is not the only company that I know of in this situation. Many people are considering relocation. I am afraid that the Government’s immigration policy is about the most stupid thing that they could have done for small business.
I have heard, and read in the papers, about the new entrepreneurship visas that are about to be issued. I would love to know how to get one for the chap, if we can. We do not have long to make up our mind. He is currently abroad as, under the law, he is required to be. In the next week or two, we have to decide where he should move to. I should be delighted to hear from the Minister how these new entrepreneurship visas will work. Why should we pay £1,000 to enter a lottery to see whether we can exist in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I thank the noble Baroness for her careful explanation of the regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has taken us into a rather wider debate. His comments were very interesting and I hope that we will be able to hear more about that issue. There is great concern that the way in which the current cap is operating is doing real damage not just to British business and industry but to the arts and academia, as we have discussed in the House on several occasions in the past few weeks. I hope that we will receive an early announcement from the Government that they will look at the policy again and make it more flexible.
Having said that, we support the general principles that the noble Baroness has outlined. We recognise the challenge of balancing the burden of the administration of the system between the migrant and the taxpayer. My reading is that the burden on the migrant is increasing slightly, although not significantly. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that. I should also be grateful if she could say what impact the fees increase is likely to have on the number of applications. Has an analysis been carried out of the possible impact on at least the main categories of application and whether there will be any unwelcome impact on regular migration when fees are increased? The Minister rightly mentioned some of the benefits of migration, which I must say was welcome.
Has an analysis been carried out of where there is clear benefit to our country from the skills that have been brought in and of our costs and prices as compared with those of other countries, such as Australia, European Union countries and the US? To extend the theme that was mentioned by the noble Earl, we need to be mindful that this country is a great global trading nation. We must be wary of any action that we take that would undermine the ability of UK companies to attract the best people. That has been one of our great strengths over the past 30 years, which it is important that the policy on immigration should not undermine. It is worrying to hear of small companies looking to, say, New Zealand for R&D purposes because of the constraints of the current system.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the increase in the cost of visas, particularly settlement visas, is part of a more general policy to bear down on numbers. Is the price increase part of a general policy of reducing net immigration? Perhaps the Minister would also refer to the matter of the migration impact fund, which was raised by my right honourable friend when the regulations were debated in a committee of the other place. I understand that the visa fee increases of the previous year took into account a £50 million contribution from migrants to that fund, which was intended to pay for projects in constituencies with a sudden increase in the number of immigrants. The Government have decided to abolish the fund, but the amount to cover the fund is staying within the visa fee. If the Minister could give us an explanation of that, it would be extremely welcome.
Will the Minister also provide a little more explanation of the alignment between fees in country and fees out of country, which she referred to in her introduction? Is the goal to have equalisation? Given the policy of looking at the proportion or cost of the administration of the fee, what measures will be put in place in that regard?
I note the significant increase in the fee for dependants. We do not oppose that, as there is a huge benefit to the dependant, but is that increase part of a deliberate policy to deter immigrants from bringing in dependants? Is it in line with the reductions of the rights of dependants, such as work rights, as part of the scheme, or is it just a method of raising extra resources when there is pressure on budgets?
Will the Minister also reassure me that no fees or charges will be imposed on Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House who make inquiries about the progress of an immigration application, on behalf of a constituent, in the case of an MP, or of someone who has approached a Member of your Lordships' House, as happens from time to time?
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be able to respond to these questions, orally or in writing. She may take it that we support the general principles, although I share the noble Earl's concern about the wider aspects of the cap, which are doing great damage to British business at the moment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I followed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very closely and will try not to repeat what he said, but I, too, have a number of questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how our fees compared with those of a number of other countries. I would be particularly interested in those of EU countries, because that is the context in which we should look at ourselves.
Wider policy objectives are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 8.2 gives the example of attracting specific groups of migrants who are beneficial to the UK. Like both the previous noble Lords, I find it difficult to separate that from the wider issues of immigration policy. Perhaps the Minister could amplify on that, without taking us into a bigger debate, which we will no doubt have very soon.
Can the Minister tell the House how the monitoring of the impact of the fees, which the Explanatory Memorandum promises will be monitored closely, will be done? Will it be a matter of looking at trends? Important as the examples that we have heard are, those examples would probably not feature very much, if at all, in the statistics. However, sometimes anecdotes are useful.
Like the noble Lord, I am happy to support the approach that has been taken in the regulations.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, a number of points have been raised in the debate, which I will try to answer.
One of the first points was on the question of a sensitivity analysis of the elasticity of demand for visas and whether price affects take-up. Partly because the impact of the fee in relation to the benefits gained is relatively marginal, there is little or no convincing evidence that the increase will have such an effect. Indeed, we have had cases—this may be regarded as perverse—in which an increase in the fee actually led to an increase in demand. The reverse is also true, as a reduction in the fee has coincided with—I do not know whether it led to—a reduction in demand. We do not have convincing evidence of a direct elasticity relationship. However, it is clearly important that we monitor what goes on, and we intend to do that. It is fair to say that there is a continuous monitoring process. In the wake of price increases, it is right and sensible that we should be particularly careful about the monitoring of their effect, and we will certainly do that.
On the competitiveness of the UK visas system with other regimes, comparisons are fairly difficult because, as Members on the Benches opposite will know, no two national systems are exactly the same. However, I will try to give some comparisons. Two comparisons that are perhaps relevant include comparator countries in the European Union, which the noble Baroness will be interested in, and some of our Anglophone competitors. France and Germany operate simplified immigration systems. In Germany, applications include a Schengen visa—comparable to a UK short-term visa—for which the fee is €60, which this month is roughly £51. France offers a Schengen visa for the same fee or a long-term visa to remain for more than 90 days, for which the fee is €99 or roughly £85. The comparable figure in the UK is £70. Overall, therefore, we mostly reside in the middle range, although we are possibly nearer the upper end for the charges for some long-term visas. I am happy to give the noble Baroness more detail in a table if she would like. To give another example, Australia charges a total fee of £1,074 for a tier 2 visa, which is a longer term visa, whereas the equivalent figure for the UK is £1,750. Ireland is much more expensive. From looking at these figures, you would not immediately say, even with the increases, that the UK is out of line with comparator migrant countries.
On the question of fees inside and outside the country, this is where one enters the Hampton Court maze of the fees structure, as the permissions for raising fees inside and outside the country are different. However, I can say to the noble Lord that equalisation is not the objective. We are raising the fees in those contexts in which we are allowed to do so and where we are able to do so without regard to whether we are going over the limits of the cost. We do not intend, or indeed have as an objective, that the fee increases or the fee structure should contribute to, or be part of, immigration policy. The issues are separate. Therefore, if noble Lords have any thought that the fee increases might somehow be a covert immigration control, I can assure them that that is not the case.
I am quite certain that we will not be charging MPs or Members of your Lordships’ House for inquiries.
Finally, on the question of the migrant impacts fund, it is indeed the case that a contribution from the visa fee previously went to feed that fund, which has now been abolished. The money will now contribute to the cost of the visa and will mitigate increases that we would otherwise have had to make.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for—if I understand the mood of the House correctly—the price structure that is being put in place.
Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 10th Report from the Merits Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, in moving the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010, I shall speak also to the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the AP1000 Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010, and the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order 2010.
The House should consider these three instruments, which I laid before it on 18 October, together. Two of them contain the decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, as justifying authority under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, that the generation of electricity from two nuclear reactor designs—Westinghouse’s AP1000 and Areva’s EPR—is justified. The third, the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order, specifies which technical matters, in addition to those already in the Energy Act 2008, are to be “designated technical matters”.
First, I will consider the two regulatory justification decisions. Regulatory justification is derived from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the ICRP, which are used around the world as the basis for radiological protection. The ICRP’s recommendations form the basis of the European basic safety standards directive and, in the UK, of the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004.
The regulations provide that the Secretary of State, as justifying authority, must decide whether a new class or type of practice resulting in exposure to ionising radiation is justified, in advance of it being first adopted or approved, by its economic, social or other benefits in relation to the health detriment that it may cause.
Regulatory justification is an initial, high-level process. It is the first step in the radiological protection regime and is made on a generic, not a site-specific, basis. Following a regulatory justification decision, there are further processes involving more detailed examinations by regulators of reactor designs and of the impact on specific sites of proposals to build nuclear power stations separately and after the regulatory justification process.
A justification decision does not mean that the reactor design and the nuclear power station will pass through these further processes successfully. These further processes are based on the principle of optimisation, a requirement to keep all exposures as low as reasonably achievable, and dose limitation, the principle that the total dose to any individual from regulated sources in planned exposure situations—other than medical exposure of patients—should not exceed the appropriate recommended limits.
Regulatory justification decisions are made in advance of full information on the benefits and detriments of the practice which might emerge from operational experience. They therefore seek to identify the potential detriment from the reactor designs by making assumptions based on the best information currently available, including information arising from the operational experience of similar classes or types of practice and the expert opinion of regulators and others. If new and important evidence about the efficacy or consequences of the class or type of practice comes to light, the 2004 justification regulations allow the Secretary of State to reassess any regulatory justification decisions.
Last year, my department published a consultation on proposed decisions that two reactor designs should be justified—Westinghouse’s AP1000 and Areva’s EPR. After considering responses to that consultation, on 18 October my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change announced his decision that the two designs are justified. I will outline our reasons for making those decisions.
We see a clear need for the generation of electricity by the AP1000 and EPR through the contribution they can make to securing the UK’s energy supplies, helping the UK decarbonise and meet legal low-carbon obligations and benefiting the economy more widely. Against this, the radiological detriment to health from these nuclear reactor designs and their associated waste facilities will be low compared to naturally occurring levels of radiation and effectively controlled by the regulatory regime. The AP1000 and EPR will be able to produce large quantities of electricity over an extended period, making a significant contribution to the electricity supply. Nuclear power has long been our most significant source of low-carbon energy and can continue to contribute to our energy mix.
It will be for companies to fund and build any new nuclear power stations and to determine whether they provide sufficiently attractive returns. Nuclear power is economically competitive with other forms of generating technology, and developments in the UK market have made clear that energy companies are investing significantly in the prospect of new nuclear power stations.
We are confident that there will be economic benefits for the UK from new nuclear power stations. Beyond direct investment and employment, we can benefit through the development of a globally competitive nuclear supply chain and improvement in the quality of a skilled UK workforce. Further, we believe that, if nuclear power stations are not part of the UK’s future energy mix, the UK would face significantly higher costs in meeting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Against these benefits, there is the potential for detriment. However, the safety features of the designs and the regulatory regime, which sets limits to the release of radiation and monitors compliance, will ensure that emissions will be minimised. The radiation to which members of the public would be exposed, as a proportion of the overall radiation to which they are exposed from all sources—including medical procedures and background radiation—would therefore be very small and the risk of health detriment very low.
The decisions apply to the operation and decommissioning of new nuclear power stations and also the management and disposal of the radioactive waste they will produce. In making the decision, we are therefore satisfied that the regulatory regime will limit health detriment from waste management and disposal, that the interim storage of waste can be carried out in a way that causes a very low level of health detriment and that a robust process is in place to identify a site for, and build, a geological disposal facility.
We also concluded that the potential environmental detriments arising from new nuclear power stations are likely to be avoided or adequately mitigated by the licensing and planning regime. We considered the risk of detriments from an accident or terrorist incident. This potential detriment already exists and the risk of such incidents would be seen in the context of the regulatory regime, which is intended to prevent accidents and protect against terrorist attack. We are confident in the regulatory regimes for safety and security of civil nuclear installations and materials in the UK and consider that the likelihood of an accident or other incident giving rise to a release of radioactive material is small. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change therefore concluded that these significant potential benefits outweigh the potential detriments, and that the generation of electricity by the AP1000 and EPR should be justified.
I now consider the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order. The purpose of the draft order is to support the requirement under the Energy Act 2008 for nuclear operators to make financial provision in their funded decommissioning programmes for those designated technical matters. The Energy Act 2008 contains only one category of designated technical matters—decommissioning a nuclear power station and cleaning up the site. The Energy Act provides that the Secretary of State specifies by order the other matters which are to be designated technical matters. The order is, therefore, necessary to give operators clarity over what are the designated technical matters that they must provide for.
The order specifies that the construction and maintenance of an interim fuel store used for storage, any activity preparatory to the decommissioning of a relevant nuclear installation, and the cleaning up of the site are designated technical matters. This means that these costs also have to be funded through funds set aside as part of the funded decommissioning programme. It might be claimed that the operator could pay for these costs out of operational expenditure and that designation is unnecessary. However, this may put the costs in competition with other demands on revenue and if the operator was unable to meet these costs when they fell due, there would be a risk that they could fall to the taxpayer. It is therefore appropriate to designate these costs to limit the risk to the taxpayer by ensuring that funds are set aside to carry out the relevant work. The order will be complemented by the Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Finance and Fees) Regulations, which will be laid before Parliament once this order completes its passage.
Following a consultation on the provision of the draft order earlier this year and responses received, the Government do not propose to extend the definition of “designated technical matters” beyond interim stores and activities preparatory to decommissioning and cleaning up the site. I believe that the order will benefit both industry and the public. It clarifies the obligations of the nuclear industry and therefore reduces uncertainty and helps investment. The order, together with the Act, ensures that the costs of waste management, disposal and decommissioning do not fall on to the taxpayer.
I commend these regulations and the two other instruments to the House.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I start by declaring an interest as chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association. I do so for a number of reasons, not least because the NIA undertook the drafting of the justification report on which these statutory instruments are based. It was a lengthy process. Indeed, some of us thought that we would never see the end of it—first, in getting the reports right and, secondly, in terms of ministerial overview and the preparation of the SIs which we are debating today. It is fair to say that this is of critical importance to the realisation of the new nuclear build programme.
There are various elements. One could say that the building blocks, or the foundations, involve more than just the justification process in respect of the Areva and Westinghouse reactors. These reactors will also be subject to the rigorous generic design assessment programme being undertaken by the health and safety regulator and the Environment Agency. But these are of a different order, being almost exclusively technical in character and they do not concern us today. We have to satisfy ourselves and the country that the kit we are going to use is of a quality that can allay the fears of people in the UK. We have to recognise that there is not unanimity on the issue of nuclear power. There is certainly now, I think, what could be called a working majority and the consensus is probably a wee bit more robust than some of the elements within the coalition, but in order to reinforce and develop this consensus, we have to deal with the broad issue of the environmental concerns of the EU.
We have ceded to Brussels—probably correctly—a number of responsibilities in relation to environmental matters. I may be wrong, but I think that, apart from the reactor at one of London’s universities, the nearest one to London is in France, so it is only appropriate that we are subject to rather broad environmental legislation which covers the continent and not just this island.
In considering the process of preparing the report it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the work of Peter Haslam on behalf of the Nuclear Industry Association and its members. He had the responsibility of herding the cats into the bag and it was not always easy getting the various players around the table, but consensus was established, agreement was reached, the document was prepared and it is in no small way due to the efforts of Peter Haslam.
We have to be careful, not only about the issue of building a consensus of tolerance of and support for nuclear power, but about taking account of the fact that there are those who are quite happy—with other people’s money, usually—to seek access to the courts to have judicial review and things like that. It may well be that this will be the subject of a judicial review. I hope not and, indeed, I think that one way to ensure public confidence is that when those who are against nuclear power—they are perfectly entitled to be so— take the advice of their learned friends, they get the message that this document stands up to close scrutiny. The Minister and many of us across the House feel that to have got to this stage and to have these statutory instruments being discussed is evidence of our confidence in the robustness of the documents and, as time will go on, of the robustness of the case for nuclear power.
It is fair to say that issues relating to waste and decommissioning are worries. There is sometimes a wilful ignorance of the fact that other countries have accommodated waste, are treating it and dealing with it in a way which has, by and large, allayed public anxieties within those countries. We can look to Finland and Sweden. In Sweden, there has always been an anxiety about nuclear power, but there has not been the concern about storage, because Sweden has got on with the job. The funding of decommissioning and the treatment of waste and its storage are paramount and people have to be reassured that that part of it that has been created by private industry will be paid for by private industry. I make that distinction at this point because a lot of the waste that we have was created by nationalised industries and therefore is the responsibility of government. That part of the deal is not a subsidy but is the public purse meeting its historical responsibilities.
My second point is that not all of the waste is civil in character. It is waste that has come about as a result of the various forms of nuclear deterrent we have had. That again is a responsibility of the state. That is not a subsidy. It may well be that in putting together the three elements—the privatised waste, if I can call it that, the nationalised waste and the military waste—we create economies of scale that make the job that bit easier because the volumes will be such that critical mass will be created and we will be able to do it more cheaply, but that is not to suggest that we are talking about subsidies of one against the other.
It is important that these statutory instruments are dealt with today and that they get the support of the House. The industry can stand up to the challenge, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”. It does not want to be an unsafe industry. That is one argument, but the other argument, which is far more compelling, is that if these private companies do not get it right, it will perhaps cost people their lives, but it will certainly cost their shareholders a hell of a lot of money. Therefore, we realise the significance of the investments, the dangers of the materials that are being used and the problems that could be created if the reactors are not satisfactory. All these issues are being considered. Once we have this element out of the way, get the generic design assessment process completed and eventually get the planning applications going to the IPC in whatever form it finally emerges, we will be in a position to start building the nuclear power stations.
At the end of the day, even if we build no more nuclear power stations in this country, we will still have to decommission the existing facilities and handle the waste, so the three statutory instruments are relevant this evening. It is important that they are given the best support that the House can give them. I do not anticipate there being a vote as that is not our custom.
I have a commitment this evening so I have to leave the House and will not be here for the wind-ups. No discourtesy is intended. I was going to send the Minister a letter, but I thought that since there are not many people here I could just say it entre nous, as it were. It is important for the industry that we get this cleared out of the way. It is one of the important building blocks. It has been not tiresome, but time-consuming, and it is a necessity that no one would shirk from recognising has been central to the development of the nuclear industry and its regeneration in this country.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I add my voice in support of these regulations. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, and I were fortunate to attend a briefing this morning by one of the potential investors that would be building these nuclear power stations. One word came out of that. The noble Lord used it; it is “confidence”. He was talking about the billions of pounds that will be invested in the next generation of nuclear power stations. The investors will have to have confidence at every stage that this is going to go ahead and be successful.
We are discussing these regulations and the order. The whole process of justification has been very elaborate. I have here the justification report on one of the two designs of reactor. This has been a formidable step. The fact that the Secretary of State has now accepted that the justification process has been properly completed and that we now have these statutory instruments is one further step in the confidence of the industry.
This is not the last word: the industries have to continue to get further consents, not least the licensing of the designs through the generic design assessment process. We heard high praise this morning of the work of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in getting to this stage. There seems to be confidence that this will happen by the due date of July next year. That has to happen, but I say nothing about planning—we are not talking about planning tonight, and that is another stage to be got through.
The industry has been looking for a number of steps to generate confidence. The Secretary of State’s statement last month was a major step along the way. There was no question about that: it made an extremely favourable impression on the industry and its potential investors and the supply chain as well.
Last week I asked a Question about the future of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and I raised with the Minister who was representing the Department for Work and Pensions—he is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive, and the NII comes under the HSE—that we are still waiting for the decision about the reorganisation and, I hope, the setting up, through a legislative reform order, of a new statutory corporation to take over the functions of the NII. I do not know whether my noble friend can say anything more about that. It is something to which great importance is being attached by the industry, particularly because of the need for the NII to be able to recruit the people with the very scarce experience and skills against a background of a global nuclear renaissance. These people are much in demand and this process, which has been under discussion for some time, is seen by the industry as another important step which, if and when it is achieved, will continue to generate confidence. I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about that, although the actual process—I entirely accept this—is not for his department but for the Department for Work and Pensions. If he can say something that would help this process of confidence, to which I have referred, I would be extremely grateful.
Like the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, I too have an engagement. I hope I can stay until the end, but I offer my apologies to the House if I cannot.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I have never felt such pressure to make a short speech, so I will see if I can do it. I thank my noble friend for his usual panache in introducing the subject. One of the things that strikes me while reading through these statutory instruments is that we have, once again, a problem of opaqueness with respect to this industry and sector. They are among the few SIs I have read in which, even after reading the Explanatory Memorandums, it is quite difficult to really get to the depths of what they are trying to say. No doubt we can blame that on EURATOM regulations or whatever. In terms of designated technical matters, this sounds innocuous but is obviously crucial to these documents and the meaning of “justification” is rather different from what I have known before. In particular, we talk about approval, but neither of these reactors is approved at all. This is just the start of the process and there is much more to go on further. I was particularly interested that in the justification SIs we have two useful definitions—on intermediate-level waste and on spent fuel—but they are never referred to in the documents. That is slightly strange.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this has been a short but perfectly formed debate and I welcome the contributions from noble Lords. I note that the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan and Lord Jenkin of Roding, may not be able to stay until the end, but I have probably benefited more from hearing them than they would from hearing me. I note also the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the technicality of the statutory instruments. In looking at the SIs today, I have been through more assessments, consultation documents and justification orders than I have for any other SI I ever spoke on in the other place. I am grateful to the Minister for the time he took in taking us through the process and the issues.
The three instruments before us today are linked. We have two justification decisions on nuclear reactors and a further instrument on nuclear decommissioning and the handling of waste. In all cases the Merits Committee drew special attention to these SIs because of their importance and because nuclear energy is a high-profile and sensitive issue, as was acknowledged by all noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to the Merits Committee for its work and I am sure that when he comes to reply the Minister will want to address the issues that it has raised.
The justification decisions are taken by the Secretary of State as the justifying authority; that is that the generation of electricity from the nuclear reactor designs, the AP1000 and the EPR involving ionising radiation, can be justified as the social, economic and other benefits outweigh the health detriments. The third statutory instrument relates to the costs of the decommissioning of waste and the funded decommissioning programme, which must be approved by the Secretary of State, setting out the likely costs of decommissioning and cleaning up the site and how those costs will be met. These three instruments strike at the heart of the issue, addressing, first, the need for new energy capacity and the ability of nuclear to provide low-carbon energy while assessing the level of risk, and secondly, the need to have a strategy and a policy for funding to deal with the waste that is created.
I want to flag up to the Minister, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the need to move quickly on the new arrangements for the regulatory regime. I appreciate that this is not his responsibility—although he will have heard the Questions in the House on this last week—but rightly the remit of another government department. However, if there is to be public confidence in the system, the new arrangements have to be in place as the Government move forward with decisions such us those before us today. The Minister will know that the regulatory arrangements and expertise in this country are recognised and admired around the world, and we all want that to continue. Will he assure the House that his department has raised and will continue to raise this with the relevant Ministers in other departments?
We currently have 10 nuclear power stations in England, Scotland and Wales which provide 13 per cent of the total electricity used in the UK. All but one of these will be shut by 2025. If we are to maintain an energy mix using nuclear, then new stations will have to be built, as Secretary of State Chris Huhne announced on 18 October 2010 when he laid the instruments before us today. In his Statement he summed up the basis of his justification as,
“a clear need for the generation of electricity by these nuclear reactor designs ... because of the contribution they can make to increased security of energy supplies and reduced carbon emissions”.
He added:
“Against this the radiological detriment to health from these nuclear reactor designs and their associated waste facilities will be low compared to overall levels of radiation, and effectively controlled by the UK’s robust and effective regulators”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/10; col. 44WS.]
Both the justification decisions were subjected to considerable consultation and no changes were made as a result of the consultation that took place. There has been some concern that there was no inquiry or hearing relating to the justification process. Does the Minister consider that the process is in any way weakened by not having any hearings?
These justification decisions are time-critical, given that the Government are committed to nuclear new build by 2017. The delays are regrettable. It would have been helpful if we had been able to get to this stage before the general election, and we have had nearly six months since then. I raise this not to apportion blame in any way but to seek the Minister’s views as to whether he considers that the Government are still on schedule for the new nuclear power stations to come into operation by 2017.
A further issue that may cause delay is the HSE licensing programme, which we have heard about already this evening. In July 2009, it was reported that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate had written to two French companies that want to build reactors in the UK to express its concerns about the control and instrumentation—the C and I—of the European pressurised reactor, the EPR, which is one of the reactors that we are discussing today. I shall not pretend to have any great technical knowledge on these issues, but I know that C and I is also known as the cerebral cortex of a nuclear power station. It controls performance, including temperature, pressure and power outlet levels. The NII raised other related concerns; similar concerns have been raised by other regulators.
The HSE said that the EPR design in Britain could be rejected if its concerns could not be satisfactorily addressed. At the time, it was reported that, in addressing these issues, the design assessment stage could be delayed well past its expected completion date of 2011. As far as I am aware, none of the EPR reactors being built in other countries is yet in service, but the companies concerned engaged with the NII and were, and may still be, in discussion with it. The companies were confident that a solution could be reached. The NII rightly made it clear that it would not issue a licence unless it was satisfied that that design could be built and operated safely. Similar issues arise also with the AP1000.
The Health and Safety Executive has announced that it may have to delay a definite decision on whether to approve the designs of both the AP1000 and the EPR reactors. My understanding is that the HSE considers that all the technical issues can be resolved, but that there may be some delay. I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, say that at the EDF briefing this morning it was said that a slight delay is expected, but it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on that.
Have the Government given any consideration to possible legal challenges to, or judicial review of, these justification orders? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also raised this matter. If it were the case, does the Minister consider that it could significantly delay the process? Both these issues have the potential to impact on the 2017 time scales, so any reassurance from the Minister would be appreciated. Perhaps I may also raise something that is not in the justification orders: the use of mixed oxide fuel or reprocessed fuel, known as Mox. Are there plans to bring this forward at a later date? No justification order for Mox could potentially limit the scope of the reactors. It may just be that the work is ongoing, but it would be helpful to know.
I also invite the Minister to say something on any potential health risks and the level of any such risk. A number of respondents to the consultation raised concerns on this issue. It is difficult for any Government to balance risk to health and well-being against other factors. This justification order means that the Secretary of State, having examined the issue, considers that the social, economic and other benefits of proceeding with these two reactors outweigh the health detriments. The Secretary of State is charged with making an assessment not just for citizens at this point in time but for many years ahead.
I know that the Secretary of State, the Minister and his colleagues are fully aware of the weight of this responsibility and I have read his considered view in the justification documents. The Secretary of State responded to the concerns raised by using evidence from a number of studies. I invite the Minister to say something further about the relative risk and the Secretary of State's assessment.
In its submission to the Merits Committee, Greenpeace raised a number of issues about which I hope the Minister can say something, but I draw one specific issue to his attention; namely, whether decisions on justification are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, given they are “practice as a whole” decisions and have a wide ranging impact.
On the third SI, on nuclear decommissioning and waste handling, the Minister will understand why I want to probe the amendments made to the impact assessment. I understood an impact assessment to be a statement of fact, so I was surprised to receive notice of a change. In the original impact assessment, at several points under what was then described as the “do nothing” option, which is now called the “correct base case”, it was stated that the cost of verifying the information provided by operators in the funded decommissioning programme, or FDP, “would fall on Government”.
The new impact assessment states that there shall be no subsidy to new nuclear power stations and that operators should pay all costs. The reason for the change is that government policy is not to provide any subsidy to new nuclear power stations. The new policy is that the Government would seek to agree with the operator to recover reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State when verifying the information contained in the FDP. But the impact assessment adds:
“Although we would not be able to compel the operator to agree such terms, it would be likely to be in their interests and so we view it as quite likely that the costs of verification would not fall to Government”.
Is the coalition Government's policy of no subsidy now reduced to “quite likely” and only with the agreement of the industry? What discussions have there been with the industry on this change? What is its view? How likely is “quite likely”?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. This is a great day for the nuclear industry, and I am delighted. Unfortunately, everyone who has spoken seems to have left, which says a lot for my winding-up speech. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for sitting there and listening to what I have to say. Perhaps she can report it accordingly. It is a great day for the nuclear industry, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, who is a terrific exponent as chairman of the NIA, for his kind words in saying that it is a great day. I think this clearly sends confidence to the industry that we are determined to get the nuclear show on the road. We have had 13 years without the nuclear show on the road. I am grateful to the previous Government for helping to change public opinion, but we have had no activity, and we now have activity. As always, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, makes good points in everything he says on this issue, because he is an expert. He is a pleasure to work with on this subject. He makes good points about waste, the economic benefit perhaps of economies of scale working with government and with civil waste, and I take those messages on board. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, again talks about confidence. The first two statutory instruments clearly demonstrate that there is confidence and that we are going down the road for it. Both he and the noble Baroness have asked questions on the subject of the NII. I take on board her comments, asking us to get on with sending a clear route map of what we need to do. The Government have been considering two options for the reform of nuclear regulation, as was said at Question Time last week—a discrete agency within the HSE or a stand-alone, statutory corporation. This is a discussion between two departments, and I assure the noble Baroness that we are pushing very hard for a conclusion on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a series of excellent points, as always. He talked about spent fuel and the levels of waste not being defined. They are defined in the regulations, in the companion instrument to this order, and I should be happy to have my staff take him through those pages, because I shall not be able to do it myself.
Lord Teverson
I hope the noble Lord does not mind if I decline that particular offer, certainly this evening.
Lord Marland
It is all very well the noble Lord asking questions, but he should know the answer to them.
One question is why we should designate interim stores. Operators must provide for interim stores during the life of a station and it is essential to ensure that the money is set aside. I was asked whether the funds were secure. Yes, there is protection in the funded decommissioning programme and in the Act itself. Funds must be remote from the operation of the Government. Neither party, including the Treasury, can get its hands on it. That was the concern.
The two reactors are hybrids and based on the foundation of reactors already in use. Obviously, they are not the same, because the people who make them are continually trying to improve on them and technology is moving forward on that. The noble Lord asked whether other reactors would require approval. Of course they would—as, indeed, would a Mox plant, as it does not fit within this legislation.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, very much for her co-operation in this particular SI. She let me know in advance about some of the matters of concern affecting her Benches, and I am grateful for that level of co-operation. We are trying to build a consensus and get the ball rolling as quickly as we can, and it is very welcome that on all sides of the House we seem to have a common theme. I thank her very much for that.
The noble Baroness asked whether we have considered whether there should have been an inquiry. Over three years we have had the three consultation processes that her own Government instigated, which I think is pretty exhaustive in the current circumstances. She asked whether we were on track; we are, and we have published the timetable on the DECC website. If she has time available, we would be happy to show her how to get on to it. We can keep her posted through that means.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I reassure the Minister that I look at the website every single day.
Lord Marland
That is very gratifying, because I do not. Perhaps she would not mind telling me about the changes that are going on at the moment.
Lord Myners
I congratulate the Minister on his honesty, which brings him great respect from the House.
Lord Marland
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, whom I much enjoy bumping into on the street every now and then. I hope that his dog is fine, and all the rest of it. I admire his honesty for saying such honest things about me, so it is a mutual appreciation society here. On the last question, noble Lords say that they are concerned, rightly, that there may be a legal challenge. We obviously feel that our case is extremely robust, or we would not be here now trying to get these regulations through.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The question I was asking about judicial review or possible legal action was not on whether the case were robust. I have read all the documents and I am sure the Minister is convinced that his case and the work undertaken have been robust. The point was specifically whether legal actions would significantly delay the process beyond 2017. He may want to check on that. If there were legal actions, would that delay the process?
Lord Marland
Clearly they would delay the process. A legal challenge is what it says, and would delay the process, but there is no sign of it at the moment so we hope that it will not happen. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, not everyone agrees with nuclear as being the future and we know who some of those people are. Through a consultation process over three years, with three types of consultation at least, you try and get to a hard edge on it.
I turn to the human rights issue that the noble Baroness raises. We believe that all human rights issues are compatible with legislation. On her point about no subsidy, I will repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said—that no subsidy means,
“that there will be no levy, direct payment or market support for electricity supplied or capacity provided by a private sector new nuclear operator, unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/10; col. 45WS.]
That clearly gives opportunity for a watering-down, because if similar support is made available more widely to other types of generation then obviously we will consider it from a nuclear standpoint. I hope that answers her concern in that area.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise for intervening again on the noble Lord; he has been generous in giving way yet again. He goes a long way to answering the point. The point I was asking was particularly on the waste disposal area and on the funded decommissioning programme, because no other process of energy generation allows for waste in that way. I was particularly referring to the order and the FDP. It seemed to me that it was tightening up the issues around any subsidy available and all costs would fall on the operator. Has this been discussed with the industry and what is its reaction?
Lord Marland
If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, the cost for provision for waste falls on the operator, who has to—as I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—provide funds at all stages of the decommissioning. That includes storage and the final decommissioning. They are fully aware of it. Clearly, we have not got to where we are now without consultation with all the operators. They understand the rules of engagement—I am not going to say they are happy with them, as I cannot immediately tell you that—and these rules are the way we are intending to proceed.
I hope the noble Baroness feels that I have answered the majority of her questions, if not all of them. As always, it is good to have a lot of questions as this is an important step change that we are making for the future of the nuclear industry.
Lord Teverson
I think my noble friend may be about to move off the questions. I did ask about these types of approvals in other European member states and how they had seen these reactors. I should have given the Minister notice of that question and I apologise that I did not. If he could write to me with any information on that I would much appreciate it.
Lord Marland
I felt that I had answered the noble Lord’s questions. These are obviously hybrids and there are similar types of reactors in Finland and France, which form the basis of these operations. If he feels that is not an adequate answer, however, I shall write to him later on the subject, if I may.
We face major changes in moving to a low-carbon economy. There is an urgent need for a diverse range of new energy infrastructure with a massive expansion in renewables, as well as more new nuclear, clean coal and gas. All of this will help us to reinforce our domestic security of supply. Regulatory justification is one of the facilitative actions necessary to enable new nuclear power stations to be built in the UK. It requires an assessment of whether the benefits of building these nuclear reactors in the UK outweigh the radiological health detriment that they may cause.
These instruments give effect to our decisions that the benefits, including the contribution which new nuclear power stations can make to ensuring secure, low-carbon energy supplies, outweigh the detriments. For that reason, they are very important measures. The provisions in the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order 2010 are an important part of the statutory framework for the financing of nuclear waste and decommissioning, and another of the facilitative actions necessary to enable new power stations to be built in the UK. I commend these regulations to the House.
Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the AP1000 Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 10th Report from the Merits Committee.
Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the draft order laid before the House on 18 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 10th and 12th Reports from the Merits Committee.