Oral Answers to Questions
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
1. What estimate he has made of the potential effects on the level of demand and output in the manufacturing sector of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I am happy to report today that annual growth in manufacturing output is the fastest in 16 years, and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply reported the strongest manufacturing employment balance on record last month. This is a crucial contribution to rebalancing the British economy away from its dependence on debt. The Budget and the spending review will help to sustain that by cutting tax rates for manufacturers, investing in transport infrastructure and skilled apprenticeships, and providing the economic stability that our deficit reduction plan has delivered in an unstable world.
Mr Bain
I thank the Chancellor for that reply, and I wish him and his fellow Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and all right hon. and hon. Members, including you, Mr Speaker, a happy and peaceful Christmas. Does the Chancellor agree that the best Christmas present he can give manufacturers in my constituency and throughout the country is a proper White Paper on growth? He has often promised to publish one. When exactly will he be bringing it before this Chamber for debate?
Mr Osborne
We have a specific review of advanced manufacturing to see what more we can do to help it, and I intend the Budget on 23 March to focus very much on supporting economic growth and removing the barriers to the expansion of manufacturing businesses and others. We are looking both at specific sectors, such as advanced manufacturing and pharmaceuticals, and at cross-government issues, such as planning and employment law, so that we provide not only the economic stability that we have delivered in recent months, but the platform for economic growth.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Further to that question and that reply, the Government’s efforts so far in that regard consist of “The path to strong, sustainable and balanced growth”. Frankly, it is an insubstantial document—well short of a strategy. The Chancellor has given us a firm lead on fiscal policy. Will he now commit to cutting through what appear to have been a large number of interdepartmental arguments about this, and give us a clear strategy for growth in his next Budget?
Mr Osborne
The first thing that I would say is that, of course, deficit reduction is an essential platform for economic growth. The fact that this Parliament, almost alone in Europe, is not having to discuss the sovereign debt crisis is in itself testament to the success that we have had. But we need now to turn around many Departments that have not really thought for years about this question: how do we stimulate private enterprise and private sector growth? We have inherited government machinery that is not equipped to deal with that. We are turning that around, and the Budget in March is the focus point that I expect all Departments to work towards.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Responsibility for our manufacturing sector rests, of course, with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who had some interesting things to say this morning about the “Maoist” nature of this Government. [Interruption.] Does the Great Leader—or rather, the Chancellor—recognise himself in the Business Secretary’s description of “cack-handed” Tories? Strictly speaking, does the Chancellor believe that the reason we have waited so long for any sign of a strategy on jobs and growth is that he is out of step with his Cabinet colleague?
Mr Osborne
The Business Secretary is a powerful ally in the Government in promoting growth—and, frankly, he has forgotten more about economics than the shadow Chancellor ever knew. I refer the shadow Chancellor to the statement that he gave recently about his own party:
“On economic credibility, we are in a really worrying position.”
Alan Johnson
We see this morning record borrowing for November, unemployment higher than expected and inflation well above where it should be. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we are about to destroy £5 billion of economy activity through the increase in VAT on 4 January. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that absolute poverty—not relative poverty—will rise for children and working age adults, with 900,000 more slipping below the breadline over the next three years. If the Chancellor has not got a plan B yet, is he hoping to get one for Christmas?
Mr Osborne
I am glad that the shadow Chancellor reminds the House of the terrible economic inheritance that we are struggling with—and overcoming. He talks about the public borrowing figures today, and I am glad that he has brought them up, because they are a reminder of the fact that we have a record budget deficit. He is—if he wants to do Christmas analogies—the incredible no-man: every time we have put forward any proposal for deficit reduction, he has said no. He is running out of time to come forward with sensible credible contributions to the economic debate about how we get Britain growing again, because at the moment the Christmas lights are on but there’s no one at home.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the record borrowing figures announced today simply serve to underline the seriousness of the situation to which the spending review was addressed, as well as the importance of sticking to the fiscal plan that has been agreed and not deviating from it in the slightest?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This country has a record budget deficit; that is the situation we have inherited. We have made some in-year reductions, which have made it slightly less worse this year than it otherwise would have been, and then we have measures next year to try to bring the budget deficit down. Every one of those measures has been opposed by Opposition Front Benchers. They have put forward not a single plan, not a single proposal, to reduce the budget deficit, but our proposals have provided this country with economic stability, in a very unstable European continent.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Following on from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), what does the Chancellor have to say about the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which says that almost 1 million people will be below the breadline by 2014? That is an extra million people. Does the Chancellor not feel any shame about what will happen to so many of our constituents—certainly mine—as a result of the policies that he is pursuing? I would have thought that it was a matter over which the Business Secretary might wish to consider resigning.
Mr Osborne
As usual, the hon. Gentleman’s question is totally over the top. I would make this observation: we have inherited this economic situation—a record budget deficit—and we are taking the action to deal with it. We are also promoting social mobility by funding a pupil premium and giving new nursery entitlements to disadvantaged two-year-olds. Child poverty rose in the last years of the Labour Government. They set a child poverty target and entrenched it in law, knowing full well that they did not have the policies to meet that target in any way. We are putting in place the policies that will deliver greater social mobility and deal with entrenched poverty in our country.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
3. What estimate he made of the effect on public finances of the introduction of a graduate tax.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
6. What estimate he made of the effect on public finances of the introduction of a graduate tax.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
14. What estimate he made of the effect on public finances of the introduction of a graduate tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A graduate tax would add billions of pounds to the budget deficit. That is just one reason why anyone in government, Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, who has ever looked at the facts has concluded that a graduate tax is unworkable, unfair and unaffordable.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), I remind him and the rest of the House that the supplementary question must be about the policy of the Government.
Mike Weatherley
A graduate tax would be less progressive and less fair than the proposals that the Government have brought forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we scrapped our proposals and introduced a graduate tax, it would be a costly disaster for those entering higher education in the future?
Mr Osborne
I absolutely do agree with that. Interestingly, as I said in my opening reply, anyone who has ever looked at the issue in government, as we did over the summer and as the shadow Chancellor did when he was the Minister responsible for higher education, has concluded that it is unworkable. It destroys the independence of universities, and it is unfair, because some students would pay much more than the cost of their education, others would avoid it altogether by moving abroad, and millions of students on lower incomes than those specified by our proposals would be hit by a tax rise. It is also unaffordable, and as Lord Browne pointed out in the report that the previous Government commissioned, it would take until 2041 for the system to start paying for itself.
Mike Freer
Has the Chancellor, in developing our policy on a graduate tax, been able to bear in mind the policies of the Opposition?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Chancellor does not need to bear that in mind. He has explained his position very clearly, and we are grateful to him. I now call Tobias Ellwood, as his question is also in this group. He is not here. Oh, dear. I call Mr David Hanson.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor confirm that in adopting his policy on tuition fees he has raised the Government borrowing requirement to £10.7 billion by 2015—a rise of £5.6 billion—in addition to cutting at least £800 million from the university budget and tripling fees, which will deter poorer students? Will he now for once confirm to the House that his choice on tuition fees is about ideology, not deficit reduction?
Mr Osborne
What we are doing is taking the report commissioned by the Labour Government and improving on it so that it is more progressive. [Interruption.] Yes, we are increasing borrowing to help students; that is part of what we are doing to fund our higher education institutions.
The truth is this, and the shadow Chancellor said it this month: it would
“be very difficult to make a graduate tax a workable proposition.”
That was the shadow Chancellor, who is now advocating as an official policy of the Labour party something that he says would be difficult to make a workable proposition. We have come forward with workable propositions on higher education, which the Opposition used to agree with when they were in government. They have now mistaken opportunism for opportunity.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the private finance initiative.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the private finance initiative.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the private finance initiative.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the private finance initiative.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
In the spending review the Government abolished the private finance initiative credit system, which provided Departments with a ring-fenced budget that could be used only to support local authority PFI projects. The change levelled the playing field between PFI and other forms of procurement.
Rehman Chishti
What does the Chief Secretary think of the comments made by the former Paymaster General, who said that PFI contracts were far too generous and too expensive?
Danny Alexander
That has a striking comment, coming from a Minister who was in the Department responsible for those things, and it reflects the general attitude towards public money that was prevalent under the previous Administration. There is a great deal of work that we can do as a Government to ensure that in future PFI is used only where it is absolutely necessary, and that we get best value for public money. That is how we should approach these things.
Dr Coffey
One of my constituents thinks that the PFI contracts that have been negotiated are one of the greatest scandals ever, if only because one of his relatives has made millions out of one. Apart from the potential £875 cost of a Christmas tree, which PFIs have caused the Minister the most angst?
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me at this stage to pick out individual examples. The important thing to say is that, in common with the work that we are doing to ensure that we get better value from our suppliers across Government and that those suppliers are making a contribution to reducing the deficit, we are working on examining the future costs of PFI, so that where we can we reduce those costs. That is very important for ensuring that we reduce the deficit effectively and have the maximum amount of money left for front-line services.
Tony Baldry
A reduction of just 0.05% in contractors’ fees could save some £500 million a year. What can we do to help the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor bring pressure to bear on equity holders and key industry PFI players to persuade them to cut voluntarily their annual charges for rentals and services?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his festive offer of assistance with these matters. I urge him and other colleagues on both sides of the House to draw the Government’s attention to areas where they see PFI schemes being wasteful, or to examples that they would like to bring to our attention. I would be only too delighted to pick those up if he drew them to my attention.
Joseph Johnson
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the Public Accounts Committee’s recent report on PFI in the credit crunch? It suggested that many projects are locked into very high financing costs for periods of up to 30 years. I wonder what scope there is to claw back some of the gains in the event of any refinancing.
Danny Alexander
The Treasury will respond in the normal way to that report, and it would not be proper for me to comment on it until we have published the relevant Treasury minute. The Treasury and the Cabinet Office are working closely together to ensure that the PFI industry contributes its fair share of savings from operational projects.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
PFI was, of course, invented by the Tories; I may be in a small minority in having consistently opposed PFI and urged that we should have public investment instead. In making an assessment of PFI, will the Government make comparisons with superb public investment projects such as Luton sixth-form college, which has been rebuilt at far less cost than it would have been under PFI?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful for that comment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the decision that we took in the spending review to end the PFI credit system. Departments now have to look at the best way of funding projects within their own budgets; effectively, the PFI credit system meant that they could top-slice local government funding for local authority projects. The change that we have made means that Departments will have to make a proper comparison between PFI costs and the sorts of costs that the hon. Gentleman has described. I am sure that the House will have heard what he has said.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, PFI was an invention of the previous Tory Government, who were having difficulties building new hospitals. Is it beyond the wit of the Chief Secretary, who knows that most of those PFIs were local negotiations and have break clauses in them, to use his imagination and look into the break clauses?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As for the politics of the matter, it was, of course, the previous Government who oversaw a massive expansion of PFI. It does not come well from the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members to be criticising an approach that ballooned under the previous Government.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituent Jeanette May wrote to me recently about the cancellation of the PFI at Maghull prison in my constituency to say that cutting the prison will affect the local economy, especially the immediate population. Does the Chief Secretary understand the impact that cuts such as the cancellation of Maghull prison will have, and how they will hit jobs and growth in communities across the country?
Danny Alexander
I am bound to say that that is yet another example of a saving that is necessary to tackle the terrible inheritance left by the previous Government, which Opposition Members now seem to be opposing. They also oppose every single cut, yet do not recognise that the consequence of such an approach would be to put this country back in the economic mess that they caused.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
7. What recent steps he has taken to reduce bonuses paid by banks to their staff.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Government have taken decisive action to tackle unacceptable bank bonuses. The Financial Services Authority has revised its remuneration code and new rules will be in place by 1 January 2011. In addition, the Government have introduced a levy that incentivises less risky banking activities, and we will continue to investigate the cost and benefits of a financial activities tax. In combination, those and other measures will ensure that remuneration is consistent with effective risk management.
Phil Wilson
The Minister will be aware that the Business Secretary has said that a big argument is going on in Government about the banks. He says that he wants a very tough approach but
“our Conservative friends don’t want to do that”.
Is the Business Secretary right?
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
May I remind the House that no hospital PFI contract was signed under the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is to resume his seat. He has come in on the wrong question I am afraid; we are talking about bank bonuses.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
While the Minister reviews the undoubtedly well-stuffed stockings of certain bankers to determine whether they have been naughty or nice, will he acknowledge the significant amount of tax that they pay, and the institutions that choose London as their domain? Will he recognise that, as far as their choice of domain is concerned, the airports of this country will not always be closed?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. At the time of the spending review the Chancellor made it very clear that we want banks to pay the maximum sustainable tax. That is why on 1 January we will introduce a bank levy, which the Opposition rejected when they were in government. That levy will raise £2.5 billion more than the net amount raised by their bonus tax.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister now admit that the more noise the Government make about this issue, the less action they appear willing to take? Will he confirm today that amidst all the PR and bluster, the Chancellor has decided not to go ahead with Labour’s requirement that all bankers’ bonuses over £1 million be published? He may be willing to ignore the Business Secretary’s nuclear option, but the millions of Britons who are paying the real price of his austerity measures will never forgive him if he lets his friends in the banks off scot-free.
Mr Hoban
I am not going to be lectured by the hon. Lady about attitudes towards banks. Labour is the party that gave Fred Goodwin his knighthood, so I will not take any lessons from Labour politicians. They talk tough, but they did nothing when they were in government. This Government are taking real concrete measures to tackle bankers’ pay and to introduce the bank levy, which they refused to introduce. In Europe there will be a most stringent application of the Financial Stability Board principles on bankers’ remuneration.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
8. What recent discussions he has had on the introduction of a Government-backed sovereign sukuk.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
As chairman of the all-party group on Islamic finance and diversity in financial markets, my hon. Friend is well known for his close interest in Islamic finance. The Government believe that sovereign sukuk issuance would not offer value for money at the present time, but the situation remains under review.
Roger Williams
I thank the Minister for that reply. A sovereign sukuk issued by the Government might lead to two benefits: first, providing funding for the Government’s borrowing requirement, and secondly, giving readier access to liquidity for the growing number of Islamic banks that operate in this country. Will he agree to meet a small group from the all-party group on Islamic finance and diversity in financial markets to discuss this matter in more detail?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We recognise the benefits that a sovereign sukuk could bring to improving liquidity in the sector, but significant costs would arise from sovereign sukuk issuance. However, I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Sassoon, who leads on this matter, will happily meet him and his colleagues.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
9. What assessment his Department has made of the effects of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on the provision of local services in deprived areas.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is for Departments to decide how best to prioritise resources within their departmental expenditure limits. The consequences in particular locations will become apparent only once these decisions have been made. However, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced the provisional local government finance settlement on Monday, and the balance of the settlement is more heavily weighted towards councils that are more dependent on central Government grants and have greater relative needs.
Barbara Keeley
Salford is ranked 15th in average scores for the 50 most deprived districts in England. The front-loaded grant cuts announced in the spending review mean that next year Salford council is faced with making budget cuts of 15%, or £40 million, which will have an impact on services such as social care for frail older or disabled people. How does the Minister square that reality with the Government’s pledge in the spending review to limit the impact of spending reductions on the most vulnerable in our society?
Mr Gauke
Had we proceeded with the spending formula that existed under the previous Government, some of the deprived areas that are most dependent on central Government grant would have faced a greater cut than the one in the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with me, and my constituents in Dover and Deal, that the council tax freeze is very welcome, and stands in sharp contrast to the massive rises that have hit the poor, elderly and vulnerable in recent years?
Mr Gauke
With reference to the comprehensive spending review, the council tax freeze and the other measures that we have announced demonstrate that we are making every effort to ensure that the difficult decisions that we have to make because of the deficit are reached in a way that is fair.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
But will the Minister now acknowledge that the spending review was in fact brutally regressive and hit the poorest hardest, especially when we see how the figures announced last week will affect individual councils and communities? For example, how can he justify the percentage changes announced last week to the local authority specific grants for learning disabilities, Sure Start and One to One tuition? The most deprived 10th of local authorities will see a drop—minus 12%—whereas the wealthiest decile will see an increase of more than 24%. How is that fair or progressive?
Mr Gauke
When we look at 2011 and onwards, we see that this is a Government who are bringing in the pupil premium and funding social care. Labour Members, when they were in government, were planning to make cuts in 2011-12. Where would they have made their cuts? We have done everything we can to protect the poorest in the very difficult circumstances left us by the Opposition.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the pupil premium in the comprehensive spending review will have a transformative effect on helping the poorest in Brentford and Isleworth, and elsewhere?
Mr Gauke
Within the comprehensive spending review we have given priority to school funding. The pupil premium will help the poorest, which is indicative of the Government’s values in looking to the long term, looking at fairness, and ensuring that young people have an opportunity that they did not necessarily get under the previous Government.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had with his Irish counterpart on measures to reduce budget deficits.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Government welcome Ireland’s effort to bring its fiscal deficit under control, and support the international assistance package currently being agreed to deliver stability.
Stephen Timms
The Chancellor used to speak of the Irish miracle as a shining example of economic policy making. Are there not, though, important lessons to learn from the misery that we are seeing in Ireland today? Is it not clear that simply increasing VAT, making large-scale public sector redundancies and cutting welfare does not add up to a successful path out of the global crisis?
Mr Hoban
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what he said about Ireland on 8 May 2007:
“The Irish economy has enjoyed a good deal of success over the past few years. The corporation tax regime has contributed to that, but there have been a number of other factors”.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2007; c. 19.]
The truth is that the Irish economy, like our economy under the previous Government, had a banking sector that was poorly regulated and out of control. It is because we have tackled the legacy of the Labour Government that we are in a position to help Ireland.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Given the misery that economies on the periphery of Europe, such as Ireland, are suffering from the imposition of a single currency throughout Europe, will my hon. Friend advise his European partners that any future plan should be motivated by what the markets demand, and not what grandiose politicians want?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He may have read the shadow Chancellor’s remarkable statement last week, that the euro had had no impact on the problems in Ireland. It is important that the right mechanisms are in place to tackle the problems in the eurozone, and that those solutions are owned by the eurozone. That is why the permanent mechanism that will replace the financial stability facility will be a eurozone-only body.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
11. What recent representations he has received on the overview of the impact of the spending review 2010 on equalities; and if he will make a statement.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Throughout the spending review process, the Treasury looked closely at the impact that decisions might have on different groups. We published “Overview of the impact of Spending Review 2010 on equalities” on 20 October, alongside the spending review document. Departments will consider the impact on equalities of decisions that are made as a result of the spending review, in the light of their legal obligations. On the day of the spending review, the decision to publish that document was welcomed by, among others, the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Fiona Mactaggart
The Chief Secretary will recall that the document said that it
“would not…be meaningful to assess the impact”
on gender of the reductions in employment “at this stage”. Given that women’s unemployment exceeds 1 million and is at its highest level since 1988, when will the Government apologise to women for making them bear the brunt of their economic policies?
Danny Alexander
I do not accept that analysis. For the sake of completeness, the hon. Lady should recognise that the Government are cleaning up a mess left by the previous Government. If she is interested in the impact on women, she should consider the pay freeze that we have imposed in the public sector, which will protect jobs, and women’s jobs in particular. It is also of benefit to women that we are allowing pay rises for people earning less than £21,000, a disproportionate number of whom are female. For the sake of completeness, she should consider those facts.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary join me in explaining to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that the Government’s policies will reduce inequalities between men and women, particularly given our more flexible approach for part-time workers? Will he reduce other inequalities, such as in spending in rural and urban areas, and ensure that the balance is restored in favour of rural constituencies, such as his and mine?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Lady has made some important points. Throughout this process we will have regard to the impact that spending decisions have on different groups, including people who live in rural areas, and in particular the most disadvantaged. Our investment in early years education and the pupil premium are important to ensure that the most disadvantaged have the better life chances that we all want them to have.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary accept the independent analysis that the poorest 10% of people will suffer 15 times more than the richest as a result of the Government’s spending decisions? With women and children being hit the hardest, support for people with disabilities being cut, and the Business Secretary suggesting that the winter fuel allowance is being lined up for the axe, no wonder there is growing public anger about big corporations and wealthy individuals seeming to be able to get away without paying tax altogether. What will he do to restore a sense of fairness and justice to the economic system?
Danny Alexander
I think that the hon. Lady was trying to get every subject into one question before Christmas. I do not accept the analysis that she offers. She should study more carefully the analysis in the spending review, which took into account the impact of taxation, spending reductions and welfare changes. It showed that as a share of people’s income, and taking account of benefits in kind from the state, people in the wealthiest quintile make a greater contribution to deficit reduction than the poorest. That is in keeping with the Government’s stated ambition of carrying through the unavoidable deficit reduction plan, which is necessary because of the mess that the previous Government left, in a way that is fair and supports economic growth.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
12. What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Dyson report on new technology.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The coalition’s programme for government made a commitment to consider implementation of the Dyson review. The Government’s growth review will be one of the main mechanisms for taking forward the Dyson review’s aim of making the UK the leading high-tech exporter in Europe. The Treasury is currently consulting on the support that research and development tax credits provide for innovation, as part of wider corporate tax reforms.
Mr Raab
I welcome that response. The Dyson report recommended tax credits for high-tech start-ups, including businesses such as Chelsea Technologies and TR Control Solutions in my constituency, which create new jobs by pioneering green technology. Can the Minister be encouraged to go one step further and introduce tax breaks to stimulate that niche area of the UK economy, which is good for jobs, revenue and the environment?
Mr Gauke
I take on board my hon. Friend’s comment, and we are determined to ensure that we do everything we can to help jobs and revenue. That is why we have been able to reduce the corporation tax rate from 28 to 24% over four years, and we are putting in place a stable and predictable tax system. I note his comments, and as I said, there is a review of the matter.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Dyson report followed the work done by Hermann Hauser, and one of their recommendations is the creation of technology innovation centres, for which the Government correctly set aside some money in the comprehensive spending review. However, all the commentators who have passed judgment on the matter have said that the £200 million allocated, although welcome, will not go terribly far. What assessment has the Minister made of the long-term need to keep that funding stream alive, and is there a long-term plan to increase it substantially?
Mr Gauke
We continue to look at technology and innovation centres, and we need to do so in the context of what we already have in the UK, such as our science capabilities and industries. We need to take advantage of the commercial opportunities that they provide. I note my hon. Friend’s comments, and we continue to consider the matter.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
16. What assessment he has made of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report on the likely effect of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on the budget deficit.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The spending review set out more than £80 billion of spending reductions by 2014-15, and in its latest forecast, published on 29 November, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility judged that the Government’s overall plan had a greater than 50% chance of balancing the structural current deficit in 2014-15, a year ahead of our mandate. Of course, I welcome that judgment.
Chris Skidmore
This year, the country faces a deficit of about £148.5 billion. Action taken by this Government will, according to the OBR, reduce that to £18 billion by 2015-16, yet there are those who reject that action and would prefer to do next to nothing. Does the Chief Secretary agree that to do nothing would cripple future generations with unbearable amounts of debt for which they were not responsible?
Danny Alexander
I agree completely, and it is worth adding that if the Government did not have a plan to reduce the deficit, as the previous Government did not, and we lost control of our public finances, the poorest in society would suffer most from that failure to take decisive action.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
We read this morning that the Business Secretary has said that the Conservatives wanted to cut the winter fuel allowance in the comprehensive spending review. Will the Chief Secretary put it on the record today that there will be no cut to the winter fuel allowance and no change in the eligibility criteria during this Parliament?
Danny Alexander
We are sticking to the winter fuel allowance. We announced that in the spending review, and we have not changed our position. In addition, we have made permanent the £25 a week level of the cold weather payment. The previous Government had planned to return it to £8.50 a week. Imagine what that would be doing now to the millions of families who are suffering in the cold.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
What assessment has the Chief Secretary made of the impact of the CSR on business confidence, and especially the ability to take on new people? For instance, the Dalton’s peanut factory in my constituency is taking on more people because of the confidence in the stability plans set out by the Government.
Danny Alexander
I am glad to hear about the companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which share the confidence of many businesses that we have a Government who have got to grips with the public finances. That gives companies the confidence to invest, which is an important part of ensuring the private sector-led recovery that we need.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
17. What plans his Department has to ensure greater transparency in remuneration in the financial services sector.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Financial Services Authority has revised its remuneration code for disclosure rules to incorporate provisions in the EU capital requirements directive, CRD3, which comes into force on 1 January 2011. The directive requires firms to make narrative and quantitative disclosures on pay policy and practices. Those requirements are at the forefront of global practice and will help ensure greater transparency in remuneration in the financial services sector.
Gregg McClymont
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), the Financial Secretary suggested that the Government were united in their approach to banking reform. Am I to conclude from that that the Business Secretary speaks for the Government when he says that the Conservative party is a roadblock to banking reform?
Mr Hoban
I hardly think that a Government who have embarked on a programme of radical regulatory reform of the financial services sector, introduced the bank levy, and set up the independent banking commission to consider the structure of banking in the UK could be viewed by anybody other than the Labour party as a roadblock to reform.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
18. What estimate he made of the effect on public finances of the introduction of a graduate tax.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I agree with the assessment of the graduate tax that the Chancellor gave in answer to earlier questions. I add that, under a graduate tax, those on the lowest incomes after leaving university would pay more than they do under our proposals. From a progressive point of view, there is an important argument against a graduate tax.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a graduate tax is neither fair nor progressive and that it would do nothing to help the 17% of my constituents who go on to higher education?
Danny Alexander
I agree. Our proposals, which the House has agreed, ensure that no one will make a payment up front when they go to university, or start repaying until they earn more than £21,000 after leaving university. I note that some hon. Members now advocate a graduate tax. They have said that they will produce their detailed plans by the end of the year, and we greatly look forward to seeing them.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
19. What steps his Department is taking to stimulate economic growth.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
As the Chancellor said earlier, the Government have launched a growth review—a fundamental assessment of how each part of government can contribute to private sector success by addressing the barriers to growth that industry faces. That will report at the time of the Budget.
Hugh Bayley
When a private business wants to grow, it invests, yet the Government are slashing not just current expenditure but investment. What are they planning to do to increase private sector investment? In particular, what are they doing to get banks to lend to small and medium-sized businesses?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the previous Government’s plans for capital investment, but the plans that we set out in the spending review put slightly more into capital investment than the previous Government planned. In particular, we are expending more on capital investment in transport infrastructure—the sort of investment that is most valuable to many businesses—in the next four years than was spent in the past four years. He should give the Government some serious credit for that.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
As all the indicators are beginning to show that the Government’s deficit programme encourages private sector investment and growth, would my right hon. Friend like to comment on the rumours in this morning’s financial pages following the recent summit with the President of the United States that the Americans are beginning to view us a model of how to promote growth by tackling deficits?
Danny Alexander
I am happy to restrict my comments to this country’s plans rather than remarking on those of other countries. However, our approach to reducing the deficit has been firm and clear. It has established confidence and is putting in place a firm platform—a precondition—for economic growth in future. It is therefore vital to stick to and deliver the plans that we set out in the spending review.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
20. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts since the G20 Seoul summit on co-ordination of efforts to reduce Government deficits.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
At the G20 summit in Seoul in November, advanced countries committed to developing plans, which reflected their situations, to tackle their deficits and promote growth. The Chancellor has been actively involved in discussions with international and European counterparts since the Seoul summit. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such discussions.
Stuart Andrew
Has my hon. Friend discussed with his counterparts the fact that the key to securing low interests rates for the long term is to take effective and decisive action on Government deficits?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are very fortunate in this country. Because the Government took difficult decisions to tackle the deficit when we came into office, we are in a much stronger place now—consider the turbulence in the eurozone. The difficult decisions that we took ensured that we stepped back from the brink of bankruptcy.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Global action on regulating the financial services sector through groups such as the G20 is vital. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee recommended a pre-funded deposit insurance scheme. It said:
“The Government should move towards pre-funding of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as soon as”
possible. Why has the Treasury turned its back on that important measure?
Mr Hoban
If the hon. Lady speaks to building societies, which are finding it difficult to lend at the moment, she will hear their concern about the amount that they pay towards the financial services compensation scheme. Contributing to a pre-funded scheme would add to that burden and reduce the ability of banks and building societies to lend to support the recovery.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Government Members, including me, believe that the Chancellor and his team are doing an exceptionally good job for the country. May I suggest another policy to reduce the deficit in this country? A freeze on our contributions to the EU would save us £22 billion over the next five years, which should be given back in tax cuts.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
22. What his estimate is of the number of single-income families which will be affected by the decision to end child benefit for households with a higher-rate taxpayer.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The withdrawal of child benefit from families containing a higher-rate taxpayer in 2013 will affect around 200,000 single-income households.
Kate Green
The Minister will be aware that receipt of child benefit by full-time mothers with no other income triggers national insurance caring credits, which count towards those women’s pensions. Will he explain how the full-time mothers who will lose child benefit under the Government’s proposals can retain their link to the national insurance system and their pension contributions?
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and employment, reform banking and ensure that Britain lives within her means.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Is the Chancellor embarrassed that independent analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that the provisional local government settlement will result in the most deprived areas bearing far bigger cuts than more affluent parts of the country? The two councils in his constituency of Tatton will see their spending reduced by less than 2 and 3%, compared with more than 8% cuts in deprived constituencies. Will he therefore stop saying that his austerity measures are fair, and admit that we are not all in it together after all?
Mr Osborne
The Prime Minister explained from this Dispatch Box that the cuts in his constituency are considerably greater than the cuts in the Leader of the Opposition’s constituency. Our reforms give local government greater control over budgets, but let me make another observation. Local government is responsible for a quarter of all Government spending. Labour proposed £44 billion of expenditure cuts. If Opposition Members are saying that they would not include local government in those proposals, they are less credible than I thought they were.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
T2. The anticipated provident societies and credit unions legislative reform order will bring great advantages to credit unions, including the ability to pay fixed interest on savings and to offer services to community groups, social enterprises and companies, but it has been rather a long time in coming. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the expected arrival date of that LRO?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
My hon. Friend takes a close interest in that matter as chairman of the all-party group on credit unions, a position he took over from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). He is right that that LRO will bring significant benefits to credit unions. Following comments by the relevant parliamentary Committees that scrutinised the draft laid by the previous Government, amendments need to be made, and I hope to lay the amended regulations in late January or early February.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
T4. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to take a particular delight in playing the role of Baron Hardup. May I say to him, in the nicest, most Christmassy way possible, that all his austerity talk provokes real anxiety in many of my constituents, who worry about their winter fuel allowance, the VAT increases in January and the major losses in construction jobs in the new year? May I encourage him to play, just sometimes, Prince Charming instead?
Mr Osborne
At least I am not the pantomime dame. The measures we are taking are dealing with the economic inheritance that the previous Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, left this country. As we go into the new year, we are one of the few European economies not facing concerns about their sovereign debt issues, and we are providing a platform for economic growth next year. That is why people are looking at the UK and saying, “There is a country that is dealing with the problems.”
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
T3. Treasury Ministers rightly assert that the vulnerable should be protected and that those with broader shoulders should bear the greatest burden. With that in mind, will Ministers report on the effectiveness of the initiative announced in September to bear down on the estimated £42 billion of tax that the wealthy do not pay each year?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. We announced that £900 million would be spent over the spending review period on reducing the tax gap, and that will begin in 2011. Earlier this month, we announced plans to tackle tax avoidance with several detailed proposals on issues that had been left for many years. We have taken a firm line on those and we hope that that will raise considerable revenue from people who should be paying more in tax.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
T5. Will the Chancellor tell the House whether the Treasury has made any plans for the possible collapse of the euro?
Mr Osborne
We monitor the European situation closely. I do not think that a collapse of the euro is remotely on the cards, but obviously stability in the eurozone is in our interests. We want to see a comprehensive solution early in the new year to some of the fundamental issues on having a currency union while not having a fiscal or political union, and we know that eurozone member states are working on those. It is also up to individual member states to do what they can to put their own economic house in order, and we would urge them to do that as well.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
T8. Does the Chancellor agree with the chief executive of a FTSE 250 engineering company, with whom I recently met, that the single most important decision by the coalition Government to date was to cut corporation taxes and thereby signal that Britain is open to business? What further plans does he have to reduce and simplify the burden of taxation on our businesses?
Mr Osborne
The reduction in corporation tax from 28% to 24% keeps the UK as an incredibly competitive place to do business and, over the next few years, will help to ensure that Britain gets its fair share of the growing global economic cake. The Office of Tax Simplification, which we have created, is specifically looking at the burden of tax on smaller businesses so that we can also bring benefits to them, although we have been able to avoid Labour’s increase in the small companies tax rate.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. The recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) shows clearly that both relative and absolute poverty will increase in every year up to 2014. Is not that the final nail in the coffin of the Government’s claim to be both progressive and fair in their policies?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that child poverty was rising under the last Labour Government and we have put forward policies to increase social mobility and tackle the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T9. As the Chancellor knows, I have written to the Treasury with details provided to me by a Staffordshire resident of an extraordinary tax avoidance scheme inherited from the last Government. I hope that it will not last long. In the spirit of Christmas, will the Chancellor invite his predecessors around for a dram so that they can explain why they found tax avoidance such a hard nut to crack?
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ assessment of the tax gap was £42 billion, but we are taking measures to address that. It is right that we do so, and we showed our determination this month when we announced a series of measures to reduce tax avoidance.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I would like to get some clarity on the taxation of the banking sector. The Business Secretary made it clear over the weekend that if the financial services sector did not exercise restraint in bonus payouts during the current round of bonuses, which goes on until April next year, the Government would consider imposing further taxes above and beyond existing taxation arrangements and the banking levy. Will the Chancellor, who adopted quite a different tone in New York, please confirm whether the Government are considering imposing extra taxation, over and above the existing arrangements and the banking levy, on the banks if they do not exercise restraint?
Mr Osborne
We said in the Budget that we were looking at the case for a financial activities tax, which is one of the two taxes that the International Monetary Fund—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says it has nothing to do with bonuses. I suggest that she goes and considers what a financial activities tax is. The IMF has set out some of the principles behind it, but we have followed the principles behind the other IMF proposal, which is the bank levy. In the past couple of weeks, we have demonstrated that we are prepared to increase the rate of the bank levy to sustain the revenue.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
While travelling on a gap year in New Zealand, one of my constituents had a nightmare experience when she was left with no access to money after her bank cancelled her card, despite her having informed it that she would be abroad. In an increasingly globalised world, will the Government consider whether banks can be made to offer a better service for UK customers living, working or studying abroad to avoid problems such as that faced by my constituent?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I am sorry to hear about the situation that her constituent experienced. It is important that banks ensure a good service for those travelling abroad, and I would encourage her to suggest to her constituent that she writes to the Financial Ombudsman Service to raise a complaint. However, I am sure that the banks will have heard what she said and take heed of her comments.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
What specific equality impact assessment did the Treasury carry out on the potential effects on women of the two-thirds reduction in Warm Front scheme funding next year announced in the comprehensive spending review?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
As I said in answer to questions earlier, we carried out an impact assessment, which we published, of the spending review. Individual impact assessments were also carried out. The matter to which the hon. Lady refers was decided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and it is the responsibility of that Department to carry out a specific impact assessment. The Treasury undertook its responsibilities fully in relation to the spending review as a whole.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
What progress is the Chancellor making on the Government’s review of the complex rules surrounding foreign earnings inherited from the Labour party, given that those rules are encouraging a number of companies to leave these shores? Those companies include WPP, Wolseley and United Business Media. That means a loss of revenue to the UK Exchequer.
Mr Osborne
That was another of the problems in the in-tray. We have announced reforms to the controlled foreign companies regime, on which we published a consultation paper a couple of weeks ago, and I expect to return to the matter in the Budget.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Chancellor has said that he will be tough but fair in his cuts to Britain’s public services. Is it fair that West Midlands police service, serving an area of high need, will be hit twice as hard as Surrey, and as a consequence lose 1,200 police officers, 270 of whom will be compulsorily retired by next April?
Mr Osborne
The police settlement is fair. Here is yet another example of the Labour party’s position. In the past hour, we have heard Opposition Members oppose all the welfare reforms, the local government reductions, and the reductions in the Ministry of Justice and Home Office budgets. Their position is completely non-credible.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Prime Minister of Luxembourg recently proposed that the EU should start issuing common EU bonds, jointly and severally guaranteed by all member states. Although the eurozone countries can do what they want on bond issuance, will the Chancellor reassure the House that Britain will play no role in an EU common bond?
Mr Osborne
I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. This is an issue that the eurozone is publicly considering, as well as other potential routes forward for the eurozone. My efforts are concentrated on getting our gilt auctions away, and I can reassure him that, thanks to the measures we have taken, that is going well at the moment.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I see on my copy of the Liberal Democrat “Whip” for this week that all Lib Dem Ministers have been instructed to visit Oldham East and Saddleworth three times before 13 January. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell me on what days he intends to visit, and will he take the Business Secretary with him, so that they can outline their “Maoist revolution”?
Mr Speaker
Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is requesting a visit in which the Minister will talk about the policies of the Government.
Danny Alexander
I am certainly not going to let the hon. Gentleman know of my intentions in advance, but it is characteristic of the attitude on his side of the House that Opposition Members do not have a single question to ask that offers a proposal for dealing with the economic problems that they caused. It is economic common sense on the Government side of the House; just nonsense on the Opposition side.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Many jobs today require a university degree, yet compared with the position on funding employees’ vocational training, there is no equivalent tax shield for employer contributions to higher education. Will the Chancellor explore changes to tax rules to encourage voluntary contributions from employers towards their graduate recruits’ higher education?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend raises a good point. That is something on which we are seeking official advice, and I will keep him informed of any progress that we make on it.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Now that the Chancellor has adopted a more belligerent tone in the last few minutes, will he open up and tell us what he really thinks about the WikiLeaks cable?
Mr Speaker
With relevance to Treasury matters, Chancellor—that is, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to respond. He is not under an obligation.
Mr Osborne
I am not sure that there is anything that I can say to the hon. Gentleman, except that I wish him a happy Christmas and I hope that he approaches retirement soon.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid that, as usual, demand has exceeded supply, and there are points of order sprouting up all over the place.
Petition
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I present this petition after receiving a similar petition with more than 2,500 signatories.
The petition states:
The Petition of Liverpool Community College students and staff,
Declares that the petitioners oppose the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA); that the petitioners believe that the EMA helps thousands of young people to reach their full potential; that the petitioners believe that the loss of EMA will damage the country’s economic future and impact on social justice by making it harder for disadvantaged young people to access education; and that the petitioners believe that the abolition of the EMA will lead to cuts in local provision as colleges respond to reductions in learner numbers.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance and to continue supporting adult learners through the Adult Learning Grant.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000873]
Points of Order
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order that the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for Health to publish a review on contaminated blood products before the end of the year has not been fulfilled? My constituent Mr Glen Wilkinson has contacted me in the last hour. He is extremely angry that a group who have suffered so much have been let down again. May I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether you would look into this matter?
Mr Speaker
Nothing disorderly has occurred. The hon. Lady is dissatisfied, but that is a different matter. She has registered that dissatisfaction, which will have been heard.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of David Quarmby’s report “The Resilience of England’s Transport Systems in Winter”, during Transport topical questions on 2 December the Secretary of State for Transport told the House:
“The findings and recommendations of the review have been implemented, and I have asked David Quarmby to come back and audit their implementation”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 955.]
Yesterday, during his statement on severe winter weather, the Transport Secretary told the House:
“Many of those recommendations have already been implemented, although some will necessarily take longer.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 1216.]
Those statements cannot both be accurate. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State to correct the record, given that Ministers have an absolute obligation to tell the truth to the House? If not, would now be a timely moment for you once again to reinforce the point to Ministers that they must correct the record when they get things wrong, even if they do so inadvertently?
Mr Speaker
I have received no such request from a Minister to make a statement. What has just been said about the importance of accurate statements to the House is true. If there is any inaccuracy, it should be corrected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am unsighted on the matter and not in a position to act as adjudicator. The point has been made; the point has been heard.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those of us who have been worried about the future of the nuclear deterrent in the light of some Government decisions will have been heartened by today’s report in The Daily Telegraph that at least one Cabinet Minister has access to nuclear weapons. Have you received any notice, from any member of the Government, of a statement to be made in this House about this welcome augmentation of British military capability?
Mr Speaker
No, I have received no such indication. I shall take this as a pre-Christmas point of order of the New Forest East genre, and we will leave it at that for today.
With reference to a point that has already been made, let me just say—I am grateful to the Leader of the House for this—that I should perhaps have reminded the House that a written ministerial statement is being made today on the subject of contaminated blood. I simply put that on the record.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. That same Cabinet Minister has also said that the Prime Minister is seeking to abolish the winter fuel allowance. Have you had a request for an emergency debate so that the position can be clarified, in order to prevent millions of pensioners from living in fear this winter?
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 December, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport about winter tyres. In his response, he told me:
“We have looked at the issue, and in fact David Quarmby addressed it.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 973.]
He went on to say that the use of winter tyres here was “not appropriate”. When I raised the issue with him yesterday, however, I told him that I could find no reference to winter tyres in the Quarmby report and that his response had been inaccurate, in that the Highways Agency actually recommends them. He replied:
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clear something up—I clearly mangled my words in my reply to her.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 1226.]
Is it appropriate to use the phrase “mangled my words” to describe something that was clearly misleading the House, when he should have put the record right? The facts were wrong.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that there is a misleading of the House involved, but the point has been made and the Leader of the House is on the Treasury Bench; he will have heard what has been said. If any message needs to be conveyed to the relevant right hon. Member, I feel confident that, as a result of the hon. Lady’s efforts, it will be.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 November, in replying to an urgent question on the right of prisoners to vote, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that no decision had yet been made. He went on to say that once a decision had been made, it would be announced in the usual manner and, in his words, “at the Dispatch Box”. In fact, it was announced last Friday, not even by a leak but by a press release. Before it had been announced to Parliament, a written ministerial statement was issued yesterday, but the announcement was not made at the Dispatch Box. Is there any means of making a Minister honour a commitment that he has made to the House?
Mr Speaker
There is no means by which to compel or oblige a Minister to follow through on the precise words or commitment previously uttered or given. How a statement is made or a decision is announced by a Minister is a matter for the Minister. However, the hon. Gentleman, who is a perspicacious parliamentarian, has drawn attention to what I would call the disparity between what was said on one occasion and what happened on another.
Diana Johnson
Further to my previous point of order, Mr Speaker. I note the comment that you went on to make about today’s written ministerial statement. May I just confirm that that written ministerial statement is merely a holding response, and that it is not actually the statement that was promised by the Minister?
Mr Speaker
I am unsighted on that point, but my additional observation about the written ministerial statement was intended to be helpful. It was not intended to spark a further debate on this occasion.
Mr Speaker
“Ah!”, says the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I am glad that, even in the approach to Christmas, we can rely on his running commentary, which is richly enjoyed.
Television and Radio Advertising (Credit and Debt Management Services)
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the advertising on television and radio of credit and debt management services; and for connected purposes.
In other words, the Bill is designed to get legal loan sharks off our screens. Credit is something that few of us are able to live without. Whether we want to buy a car or a house, go to university or get married, most of us use loans of one form or another to enable us to do it. Debt in itself is not a bad thing. The problems start when debt becomes unmanageable—when loans are taken to repay other loans, and when the percentage of our income spent on debt creeps up and up until we are unable to service our debts.
Loans are often taken out following a change in circumstances, such as a relationship breakdown or the loss of a job, or to tide us over while times are tough. Loans are frequently taken out in response to emergencies such as a broken washing machine, the need to travel to a funeral, or unexpectedly high bills for facilities such as heating. The idea that people in unmanageable debt are always simply spendthrifts who should have known better is not correct. All but the very wealthiest have debt. Most of us either escape it or manage it reasonably successfully, but being in unmanageable debt is a problem that eclipses all others.
We know that owing money that cannot be repaid leads people to depression, suicide, domestic violence, alcohol misuse and deeper debt. Loan companies know that as well, and go to great lengths to make their products appear easy, everyday, and the perfect solution to an all-encompassing problem. Darlington citizens advice bureau tells me that the number of people applying for payday loans in Darlington has been increasing, and that television advertising is responsible. Such loans come with interest rates of about 2,500% for Wonga and 5,000% for Payday First. There is little disagreement about the expensive nature of that type of borrowing. The total cost of credit is well over 20% of the value of the loan. A consumer survey run by MoneySavingExpert. com suggests that a 20% cap on the cost of credit would be welcome.
The Bill does not seek to ban high-interest loans, although I think that that would be a very good thing. It seeks to prevent such loans from being advertised on television and radio. Television and radio advertising are the most effective forms of advertising available. Campaigns that use them consistently out-perform those that do not. Ads are now cheaper in real terms than they were in the 1980s and, on the whole, more successful. Advertising works. That is why restrictions are placed on the advertising of alcohol, and why the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio is not allowed.
We know that advertising generates demand, and that that is why companies pay large sums to advertise. We also know that other countries are getting serious about trimming the worst excesses of the credit and debt management industry, with maximum interest rates being introduced in the United States and parts of Europe. That is leading to an increase in high-interest lending in this country, with many US firms looking to the under-regulated UK market for their next growth opportunity.
By preventing the advertising on television and radio of loans that cost more than 20% of their value, we will remove the main means by which lenders target people on low incomes or on benefits, convincing them that a high-interest loan is appropriate, desirable and easy. In such ads, expensive lending is given the appearance of something that everyone is doing. That is classic nudge theory: make us believe that everyone is at it, and we are more likely to join in ourselves. That is fine when applied to recycling or exercise, but not so fine when we are talking about exploitative loans.
The Bill also proposes restrictions on debt management services. We all know the ones I am talking about. Even those of us who do not admit to watching Jeremy Kyle have seen them: “Repackage all your debt into one easy monthly payment.” Again, the ads make it look so easy. What they do not mention is the high cost of the debt restructure, or the fact that the same service is available from free Government and charitable sector organisations which are not in a position to pay for expensive television advertising. The eventual result is a spiral in which hefty charges are imposed on consumers who are in a desperate position. Those charges produce profits and pay for further advertising, enticing more people into using the service.
Statutory regulation, over and above the very basic licensing and supervisory regime presided over by the Office of Fair Trading, is vital. Over-indebted vulnerable consumers are acting under stressful conditions, without the time or inclination to shop around. There should be adequate protection from rogue providers of debt advice, so that huge numbers of already indebted consumers are prevented from falling into even greater financial difficulties. Estimates suggest that in 2010, fee-charging providers of debt management will cost heavily indebted consumers between £207 million and £275 million in fees alone.
At the end of September, the OFT published the results of a review of compliance with its debt management guidance, which providers are meant to abide by. The OFT found that non-compliance was widespread and had reached an unacceptable level. Misleading advertising was the most significant area of non-compliance—in particular, failure to disclose that a fee is retained by the business, and misrepresenting debt management services as being free when they were not.
My Bill proposes that adverts for debt management services should have to make their charges properly clear in all their advertising, and further that they should make it clear that alternative sources of free advice are also available, such as Payplan and Citizens Advice.
The Government have confirmed that Jobcentre staff will soon start issuing vouchers for people to exchange for emergency food supplies. The scheme will begin next month and roll out nationally in April. It is surely wrong that those same people who are being assisted by the state in this way are allowed to be deliberately targeted, misled and exploited.
By preventing high cost lenders from advertising on television and radio and by changing the way in which debt management advisers promote their services, we can start to make this sector less ordinary. We have given high cost lenders and debt management services an easy ride in this country. By curbing the worse excesses in their marketing, we reduce their ability to mislead increasing numbers of people into thinking that what they have to offer is good value, easy and commonplace.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Jenny Chapman, Yvonne Fovargue, Nic Dakin, Justin Tomlinson, Heidi Alexander, Valerie Vaz, Tom Blenkinsop, Dr Stella Creasy, Sheila Gilmore, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Mr Robert Buckland and Tracey Crouch present the Bill.
Mrs Jenny Chapman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March 2011, and to be printed (Bill 129).
Christmas Adjournment
Mr Speaker
Before I call a member of the Backbench Business Committee to move the motion, I should inform the House that a six-minute time limit will apply to Back-Bench speeches, and Ministers will be expected to wind up the debates on each occasion in 10 minutes. The list of Members and subjects has been published, but the order in which Members are called will depend upon the discretion of the Chair. As usual, the occupant of the Chair will seek to alternate in calling Members to speak from both sides of the House and will take into account how often each Member has spoken previously in this Session.
This is an experiment and we may need to be flexible to accommodate as many Members as possible and get ministerial replies to their speeches. Members are expected to remain in the House for the whole of the debate in which they are taking part. The annunciator will give notice of the likely start time for the next debate.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
I move this motion on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. On behalf of Back-Bench Members I should like to thank the staff of the House for the splendid work that they do in supporting us through the whole year. In particular, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee I thank the Clerk and staff of that Committee. I extend to you, Mr Speaker, my thanks for putting Parliament first and putting the rights of Back-Benchers firmly on the map. Through your direct and indirect actions, you have helped to restore confidence in Parliament.
The Backbench Business Committee wanted to try an experiment on the last day of term. The idea of the debate is that Ministers should have an opportunity to hear what Members say, that Ministers will give a substantive response to Members, and that Members will know the timing of the debate through the various chapters that have been used. If the experiment is successful, we will consider repeating it in future.
Cabinet Office
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am very grateful for this opportunity to make a few introductory comments on the 2011 census, in which I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). He has sent his apologies for being unable to be here today, but he and I had a conversation about this issue this morning and he supports the comments I will be making, not least because they have been informed in part by an excellent briefing from Westminster city council. That is a comfort, because the council and I spend six days a week fighting like ferrets in a sack, so it is a pleasure when we are able to find areas of common agreement.
Ten years ago there was massive under-enumeration of the population in my constituency and my borough of Westminster, as well as in Manchester, many parts of east London, Cambridge, Oxford and many other areas of the country. One million fewer younger people than anticipated were counted at the end of the census process in 2001, leading the then director of the Office for National Statistics to comment that he thought they were probably all in Ibiza. That was a very good joke but, unfortunately, it hid a serious truth, because the reality was that the under-counting of the population in 2001 was almost entirely among harder-to-reach communities—poorer communities, black and minority ethnic communities and the more mobile communities—and that mattered. It mattered both in terms of the purity of the data and in terms of the grant allocations to local authorities.
In my borough of Westminster, 63,000 fewer people than anticipated were found by the census, and the contact rate was just 71%, which was the fourth lowest in the country. It took the local authority—I know because I was working with it—at least three years to convince the Government and the ONS that the census had been wrong. It was wrong in part because the contact rate was so poor, but it was also wrong at a most staggering level in that census forms were simply not delivered to entire estates. It was an extraordinarily incompetently managed exercise.
The four sweetest words in the English language are “I told you so.” Before the 2001 census, I told the local authority, the Government and the ONS what would happen. The glow of self-righteousness lasted for longer than the census period itself, but it has given me no real satisfaction because this took so much time and did so much damage, and because the imputing of statistics after the process cannot capture the complexity of the population at a small-area level. The fact that the ethnic make-up of populations has not been thoroughly identified has meant that ever since we have not had sufficiently accurate data to be able to administrate health and local government services properly.
The 2001 census was subject to scrutiny by the Public Administration Committee and the London Regional Select Committee, which I briefly chaired, and I pay tribute to the officers who organised that scrutiny process. A number of evidence sessions were held, and by the end of the process I was convinced that some lessons had been learned from the errors of 2001. A proper address register is being compiled for the first time, although I suspect it will not be maintained, and investment has been put into the scanning and tracking of census forms to ensure that there is real-terms accuracy in their return.
Set against that, however, is the fact that we now know from Government statements that the 2011 census will be the last one. That sends out a powerful psychological message. It is likely that this census will not attract as much support as previous ones. Also, local authorities and voluntary organisations, who are important partners, are distracted by cuts. The funding for administration is under pressure, and the Government have stated that they would like to see reduced funding. Above all, despite the ONS’s commitment to a partnership with local authorities, it maintains a one-size-fits-all approach to management. The Westminster council briefing states:
“the ONS has placed a great deal of emphasis on the idea that the 2011 census is to be delivered in partnership with local authorities but the lack of local flexibility means that, for example, Capita’s recruitment is so complicated and restrictive that the ONS have been unable recruit even half the staff needed locally.”
Is the Minister content that staff will be recruited and trained properly?
There continues to be a serious risk that the ethnic minority populations will be the most significantly under-counted. Westminster’s own survey found that the response was low, particularly in the high-churn districts, where it was as low as 4%. Without additional assistance and the Government giving a higher priority to this, and without the ONS now rapidly adjusting its response to the lessons being implemented by Westminster and others to improve the quality of the census process, we are in danger of not only repeating the failures of 2001 but possibly producing an even worse outcome in some areas. That will be bad news for local government and bad news for the health service. It will also reflect badly on the Government, and I ask them to make sure that, in the 20 remaining weeks, these errors are corrected.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
When I was thinking about this debate and my speech, I was conscious that the term “big society” has only recently been added to the political lexicon. In my opinion, it is not a new concept, however. One might almost call it an age-old human value. Here is a quotation that I believe begins to explain what the big society is:
“To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.”
That was said by a man called Edmund Burke, who was the MP for Bristol in 1774.
Edmund Burke was one of the first writers to realise the importance of the spontaneous social groupings that people create for themselves. Social scientists have increasingly recognised that Burke’s little platoons are the glue that holds society together and makes it tolerable. The point I am trying to make is that big society initiatives and volunteering empower people, and I think the big society could be one of the biggest social mobilisers we have had for generations.
It is not just poverty and difficult family circumstances that hold young people back; it is also the poverty of aspiration and a lack of good role models. By being part of a community group—whether in politics, sport or the arts—inclusion gives young people a sense of purpose and aspiration. It gives them a sense of community and active citizenship, and it can provide them with successful role models who can lead the way.
I know how difficult it is to escape from the constraints of our individual circumstances. I would not be a Member of Parliament if it were not for the fact that I was once a volunteer. At the age of 18 I wanted to engage in the political process locally and get involved in campaigning for a political party. It was only when I met other like-minded individuals, albeit from very different backgrounds to my own, and when I was inspired by role models, that I started to think that, perhaps, even I, who had left school at 15 with no qualifications, could one day be a Conservative Member of Parliament. People see others who are doing it, and they start to think, “Why not me?”
There are many examples in my own constituency of volunteer groups that inspire young people to mobilise and be part of the community. I think of the volunteers who run my youngest son’s Army cadet detachment in Patchway—unpaid, passionate individuals who give up a lot of their time to keep the detachment going and to give the youngsters the chance to broaden their horizons by learning how to live and work with people from all walks of life, and who teach the cadets real life skills and provide great role models. I was also lucky enough to be invited to meet, at one of their weekly meetings, the St John Ambulance cadets in Bradley Stoke. I met some wonderful young people, some of whom are so passionate about their cause that they want to go on to become doctors and paramedics and take up other roles in the medical profession. I am in the process of arranging a trip for them to the House of Commons.
The big society is about overcoming the problems Britain faces by pulling together and working together. In this vein, real change does not come from Government alone, but, more importantly, when the people are inspired and mobilised. This is the underlying ethos behind the big society programme, and it is the approach we should take to improve social mobility.
In practical terms, the big society is a vision that can partly be described as championing local people at grass-roots level so that they can empower themselves and their communities, and partly as encouraging the private sector to help us to tackle social problems and to contribute to society as a whole. As the Prime Minister states:
“all the Acts of Parliament, all the new measures, all the new policy initiatives, are just politicians’ words without”
the empowerment of people at a local level.
Nat Wei, the highly successful social entrepreneur who, as executive chair, has been instrumental in setting up the Big Society Network, has said that in groups people
“learn what society fundamentally is”.
He has also said that that
“grouping at the local level is arguably a public good”.
The big society is intertwined with the improvement of people’s lives and circumstances. The big society initiatives and the mission to improve social mobility pave the road on the journey back towards a healthy civil society—towards a 21st century-friendly society, in which all are invited to be active members.
I also wish to pay tribute to some of the organisations in my constituency, which are most prominent in my mind, for what they do to improve social mobility through big society programmes. I am thinking of the council for voluntary service in south Gloucestershire, which gives the voluntary and community sector in that area effective and accountable representation. By sitting on various strategic bodies and supporting other voluntary sector representatives, it ensures that volunteers are represented in local government. The guidance and assistance provided by south Gloucestershire CVS is invaluable to the voluntary sector locally. I also pay tribute to the Southern Brooks Community Partnership, which has done so much to promote the big society agenda in Filton, Bradley Stoke and elsewhere.
The Government’s vision for a big society with more diverse providers of public services and greater power for communities to make local decisions brings huge opportunities to charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises. I am pleased that as well as providing these new opportunities and rights, the Government will assist new providers by improving access to the resources they need and providing funds to pilot the national citizen service. The big society bank will bring in private sector funding, in addition to receiving all the funding available to England from dormant accounts. I know that that, in particular, will help to transform the lives of many of our young people. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I am deeply encouraged by the commitments that the Government have already made to the big society agenda and to improving social mobility in our country hugely.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the all-new, super-duper, pre-recess Christmas Adjournment debate. I wish to discuss the plans for a city status competition in Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee year and the arrangements for that contest. If I get the opportunity to do so, I might just make the compelling, excellent and fantastic case for the beautiful city of Perth.
We in Perth were delighted when it was announced that there was to be a city competition in 2012 and we look forward to putting our compelling, excellent and fantastic case, alongside like-minded towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom. We naturally presumed that, once again, the Cabinet Office and the relevant Minister would attempt to ensure that a wide range of cities from throughout the United Kingdom would be rewarded with official city status, in recognition of the different civic traditions, arrangements and cultures in our diverse component parts of the United Kingdom. We therefore cannot begin to say how disappointed we were with the plans that we saw and how puny they were. Instead of encouraging a good competition, one that would match the commitment, energy, enthusiasm and ambitions of a range of candidate towns and cities across the United Kingdom, this time the Government have, for some reason, sought to award this status to only one city throughout the United Kingdom. After the efforts that we have made in our city, that has come as a crushing disappointment to Perth, as I am sure it has to other small applicant towns and cities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
Perth first approached the Ministry of Justice a couple of years ago to see whether it could secure official city status in advance of its 800-year anniversary: it is 800 years since Perth was awarded a city charter and became a royal burgh. We were encouraged to drop that plan and bid in the 2012 competition, which is what we have decided to do. Perth sees itself as a different aspirant city because it was an official city; it had its lord provostship. That goes back to what I was saying about the differences in tradition and culture between Scotland and the rest of the UK. We do not have mayors; we have provosts. It is bizarre to ask us to compete with towns and cities that have mayors, given that we have provosts. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
Perth was an official city—in fact, it was the capital of Scotland and was where the Kings of Scotland were crowned. Until the 1970s, when the town was so callously stripped of its official city status, it was considered to be the second city of Scotland. So for us this campaign is not about securing city status; it is about restoring that status and it is a matter of justice. Even in 2010, Perth is still very much considered a city: it is the “Fair City” of Sir Walter Scott’s book; it is the gateway to the highlands; it is the legal, administrative, commercial and educational centre of one of the largest areas in the United Kingdom, with one of the fastest growing populations in the country; and it even has a far-reaching international footprint, as we see when watching the English cricket team struggling to preserve the Ashes out in Western Australia.
When considering this competition, we must ask how we have done it before. In 2002, we had the Rolls-Royce version of a city status competition, when each of the nations of the UK had its own internal competition. That year, the city of Stirling was lucky enough to be awarded official city status. The millennium competition was not quite the same—with different competitions throughout the UK—but the equivalent of the Ministry of Justice at the time put real effort and energy into awarding this status to a range of cities from across the United Kingdom. Brighton and Hove, Wolverhampton and Inverness all won, so there was one winner from the south of England, one from the midlands of England and one representing the rest of the nations of the UK. That was a fantastic example of how a city competition throughout the UK could be organised and it was far more generous than what is on offer the next time around.
Such is the concern that, in a rare gesture of political unity, all the political leaders in the Scottish Parliament have come together to express their concern that Scotland will be overlooked. We in Perth are confident that we can see off all comers, because we believe that our case is fantastic, excellent and compelling, and that the beautiful city of Perth will be a real contender. However, what we presume will happen, given that there is to be only one winner, is that this competition will be lazy and sloppy. We presume that it will tend to favour the largest and those with greater access to the centre of power and—dare I say this?—it may favour applicant towns with one Conservative Member of Parliament or with several Conservative MPs.
We know that 11 towns from England are bidding to be official cities this time around, the smallest of which is twice the size of Perth and the largest of which is five times as populous, so they will have greater resources to deploy. If I were representing an English applicant town, I would expect to win this one. I would not expect the winner to be from the Celtic fringe. Given that England is the largest constituent part of the UK, I would expect one of its towns to win. All I am asking the Whip to pass on to the Minister is a request to review slightly what the Government have in mind for this city status competition and to do what was done last time around. The Government should reward a series of applicant cities from across the UK and make this fair. Let like compete with like. The Minister can still do that, because the plans can still be altered. Let us have a proper, genuine city competition that can meet and match the ambitions of communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I, too, associate myself with the kind remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in passing on good wishes to everyone at this time of year?
I wish to discuss the West Lothian question, which, as I am sure all hon. Members appreciate, is the nickname given to the situation post-devolution in which MPs here at Westminster who represent Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish constituencies may find themselves able to vote on matters that do not affect their own constituents.
In West Worcestershire, which I think of as being the heart of the heart of England, this issue is being raised increasingly frequently with me. Recently, I took part in a television debate, where the reporter had been to the border between Shropshire and Powys. Located on the border is a village called Chirk, which is divided. On one side of the town prescriptions are free and on the other side they cost £7.20. The differences do not end there, because the village might also be divided over matters such as university tuition fees and other services where the Welsh Assembly Government might treat their residents differently. Do not get me wrong, I am a big supporter of devolution and the process of localism that we are going through. It represents enormous progress. I am also a big supporter of the Union, but it does not mean that the West Lothian question can be swept under the carpet for ever.
The manifesto on which I was elected said:
“Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation”
of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voting on matters that do not necessarily affect their constituents. It continued by saying that we
“will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.”
I completely acknowledge that during the five days in May, when the coalition’s programme for government was put together, the pledge was somewhat changed, and a commission has been called for to look into the question.
On 26 October, I was able to ask the Deputy Prime Minister in the Chamber for an update on when the commission might be established, and he replied:
“My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, who has responsibility for constitutional affairs, will lead on that and he will announce our intention to set up a commission on the long-standing knotty problem of the West Lothian question by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 154.]
Last week, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) received a written answer from the same Parliamentary Secretary, to the effect that the Government are
“continuing to give careful consideration to the timing, composition, scope and remit of the commission. Its work will need to take account of our proposals to reform the House of Lords to create a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, the changes being made to the way this House does business and amendments to the devolution regimes, for example in the Scotland Bill presently before the House. We will make an announcement in the new year.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 822W.]
So my first question for the Department is: will the Government clarify which part of the new year that is likely to be, and confirm that the new year referred to is, indeed, 2011?
I should like to use this opportunity to preview my private Member’s Bill. I was lucky enough to be placed seventh in the ballot, and the Bill has its Second Reading on Friday 11 February. It has the innocuous title of the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill, and from my research into the West Lothian question I have found that the challenge is to get around parliamentary privilege. We are all elected to this place equally, and we can all have an equal say and vote on all issues, and we certainly do not want to have two categories of MP.
Many much more distinguished brains than mine have wrestled with that knotty problem. In 2000, Lord Norton of Louth looked into the matter and came up with some proposals; in 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) had a private Member’s Bill on the issue; and Lord Baker of Dorking had a Bill in the Lords in 2005. The current Prime Minister then asked the now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), to look into the issue.
It might be possible to use Standing Orders and Speaker certification to identify which Bills affect which parts of the UK. My private Member’s Bill simply calls on draft legislation to identify and outline which parts of the UK it affects. It is a simple piece of preparatory, enabling legislation, and I urge all hon. Members who share an interest in the matter to come to me with their ideas. My second question is: will the Government be able to support my private Member’s Bill?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Christmas Adjournment debate is a good opportunity for the Government, 2010 years after a botched census led to a baby being born in a stable, to get the 2011 census right. Slough has for a long time been a victim of the failures of the previous census, and as a result we have been underfunded for a significant period. I am concerned that worse problems might occur in the 2011 census, and they will arise from a combination of inadequate resourcing and flawed methodology.
The first flaw in the methodology is the emphasis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) pointed out, on using the post. That is a deterrent to people in my constituency, many of whom have poor literacy skills. Moving as a primary school teacher from Peckham to Slough, I was shocked by the poor literacy in the constituency that I now have the privilege to represent.
Slough’s “hard-to-count” score is assessed as a three, which puts it in the top 20%, but that is another error. It should be assessed as a four, and in the top 10%, to account for our transient and diverse population. One indication of the rapid change in Slough between 2008-09 and 2009-10 is that schools in my small borough recorded 531 recently arrived pupils from 53 different countries.
The score also does not take proper account of the impact of houses in multiple occupation. Slough can provide the Office for National Statistics with information about 1,500 HMOs of which the authorities are aware. For the remaining 2,000 HMOs, which are implied by census and survey data, only one questionnaire will be posted, however. If the questionnaire is posted back or completed online, no follow-up visit by a census collector will take place. Only if a questionnaire is not posted back or not completed online will there be any opportunity for accurate counting through a follow-up visit, and those houses in multiple occupation are just ordinary terraced houses.
Additionally in Slough, a number of people live in sheds and other hidden households for which we have no address, so there will be serious problems in dealing with that. I should like to suggest five remedies to which I hope the Minister will respond.
First, the Minister should ensure that the people responsible for collecting census forms have the requisite language skills. Slough borough council is concerned that none of the census posts being advertised has language as an essential requirement. The recruitment and selection process that Capita is delivering on behalf of the ONS means that there are no face-to-face interviews, and that selection decisions are based on performance in online testing and questioning. Although language skills are listed as desirable for all roles, they are not part of the recruitment and selection process, but they should be.
Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the operational elements of the 2011 census include dedicated and adequately resourced events at which people can complete census questionnaires? Currently, the planned completion centres will not have sufficient personnel who are able to re-issue household questionnaires. Only ONS staff can do that, and in my borough only seven and a quarter people will be able to do so.
As a result, in a very verbal town, the events in the centres, which could be a good way of ensuring that people are able to complete their questionnaire, will not take place frequently enough or in enough places. Are the ONS staff trained in questionnaire filling? Will they have the language skills that my constituents require? The ONS says that local authorities can set up alternative completion centres, but local authority staff cannot issue new forms; only the ONS staff can do that.
Thirdly, a national marketing campaign must take place. It has been deferred because of the Government moratorium on advertising, and that is pretty stupid, frankly. Will the Minister ensure that materials are available and clear? Slough has volunteered to translate certain materials, but the ONS has not agreed, so may I have an assurance that the publicity campaign will be agreed to?
Fourthly, we must improve the arrangements for large households. Currently, the head of household will have to request an additional form if there are more than six residents in their household. They will have to do so using a phone line, and in Slough the head of household is likely to be someone for whom English is not their first language, so such requests will be hard to make. May we therefore have better arrangements for people who need supplementary forms?
Fifthly, Slough is under-represented. I am familiar with the London borough of Wandsworth, which is about twice as big as Slough.
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, and sampling will take place after the 2011 census, because that will be the last one. Sampling techniques are theoretically great, but I spent 10 years trying to persuade the ONS that its sampling techniques and statistical methods were inadequate, so I know that they are not perfect.
To return to resources, the London borough of Wandsworth is about twice the size of Slough and has a similar ethnic mix, yet Wandsworth has two area managers, whereas Slough has one quarter of an area manager. Wandsworth has two community advisers, the same number as Slough, and 23 co-ordinators compared with Slough’s five. I do not begrudge Wandsworth that; indeed I live in Wandsworth as well as in Slough, but the ONS has shown since 2001 that it does not get Slough and continues not to get Slough. Unless it gets Slough and puts the resources in we will—once again—be under-counted in the 2011 census.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
The third sector makes a huge contribution to the quality of life of everyone in my constituency, and given the opportunity it could do even more. In Portsmouth, we are particularly indebted to Community First, which has done so much to support charities and community organisations.
However, there are some very real threats to the sector’s capacity to expand, and even maintain, its current work in the community. Local authorities are faced with reduced grants from central Government. In the economic circumstances, it would be a naive council that thought that it would be protected from the consequences of a massive deficit, but it would be a lazy council that responded to the challenge of a reduced budget by cutting funding to third sector organisations.
If local authorities use this spending round as a cover for a retreat to the comfort of central provision, they will not be thanked and nor will they be acting responsibly. I am sure that everyone in the House understands, and can give many examples from their own constituencies, of how the third sector delivers better value for money and the most client-focused services, raises additional funds and inspires more good will than its public and private sector counterparts. It is said that the people do not know what the big society is, but people do know that and the third sector has been laying the foundations for years. It is big state local authorities that are refusing planning permission for the next stage.
I have identified four key concerns in Portsmouth. First, local authorities must harness the power of the third sector rather than stifling it and running it down. There is a lacuna in service commissioners’ understanding of what the sector can offer and an unwillingness to fill it. The Government have done and are doing much to level up the playing field, but unless commitment is continued at a local level where powers are being pushed, we will not succeed in empowering charities and community groups to become providers or set up sustainable services.
Take a service such as Motiv8, for young people in Portsmouth. The enormous amount of money that it saves the public purse in the long term is well documented and there is no doubt that such services are required. Yet unless it can be sure of transition funding, some of its activities might have to stop. There is no doubt that the ill effects of its absence will be keenly felt and, in time, the council will need to re-establish similar provision—but this time, probably council-provided. That is a complete waste of money and the same could be said for other services such as Pompey Stars, Off The Record and Enable Ability, which already deliver very good returns on investment.
To shut such services in spring purely to reinvent them in the summer, following the loss of staff, premises and good will, seems a crazy thing to do, especially as these services are often able to attract considerable additional funding if they are given enough time to do so.
This small-mindedness is further represented by the lack of a commissioning framework in Portsmouth. That makes it extremely difficult for organisations such as the Alzheimer’s Society to plug into the service needs of the population. Work is under way to streamline and standardise commissioning in Portsmouth, but I am very sceptical about whether that will create a level playing field for small voluntary organisations.
There is much to be done on the demand side of commissioning, too. If we are really to tackle the considerable unmet need that exists in Alzheimer’s and dementia care, we must be focused on that need and find ways to meet it. Portsmouth city council must cut its backroom costs and find ways of making every pound spent on these services lever in more funding and volunteers. It should be increasing provision, not shutting services in the north of the city such as those provided at the Patey centre.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend; I am sure that everyone can give examples of such things happening on their own patch.
Another example of how the sector could support the commissioning and design of services can be seen in the work of the wonderful Beneficial Foundation, which provides not only training and life skills teaching for people with learning disabilities, but a fantastic business recycling scheme that provides arts and crafts materials for so many organisations. At a time when the council is seeking to introduce a business recycling scheme, would a conversation with the Beneficial Foundation not be worth while?
Thirdly, there is a refusal to maximise our community assets. The Stamshaw and Tipner leisure centre, which has been threatened with closure and demolition on more than one occasion, is due to be made structurally sound next year, but there is no funding to bring the interior up to a standard that would guarantee a sustainable number of bookings from community groups. In response, members of the community have stepped forward to do it themselves—time, tools, materials and donations have been offered. But it has been very difficult to engage with the local authority on simple matters such as the building schedule and getting approval for the work to be done. How much good will is lost when the local authority is not responsive to such offers?
In my patch, many community assets have been neglected for years, and—one suspects—earmarked for demolition, to be replaced by housing. In Cosham, for example, there is the Moat club and the amazing Wymering manor, which is even mentioned in the Domesday Book. I am delighted that at long last the Hilsea lido has been transferred as a community asset. The Pool for the People group is legendary for its hard work and dedication to restoring this wonderful community facility to its former glory. I have every confidence that we will be able to retain these assets and that in the not-too-distant future, generations of Portsmouthians will be able to enjoy the manor and the lido again. However, we have to make it as easy as possible for communities to help themselves.
The final obstacle that I have identified in Portsmouth is the lack of financial transparency at Portsmouth city council. If you go to the council’s website and look for information related to its expenditure, you will find this statement:
“We believe transparency is a key condition and driver for the delivery of our services. As a publicly funded organisation, we have a duty to our residents to be transparent in our business operations and outcomes.”
Unfortunately, that is it. There is no information about what it does spend the money on, and it is one of the only councils in the country not to have published its expenditure online. The north of the city has been scandalously underfunded for decades. The council must move to publish all its expenditure online, so that people in my constituency can see what they are owed and what has been spent—exactly what has been spent on Alzheimer’s and dementia care, for example, and what is going into our community assets.
I also want my local authority to set up a modest transition fund—of tens of thousands of pounds, not hundreds of thousands—to ensure that services whose external funding is not secure by the time of the Budget can continue until the end of summer, when statutory or other funding will be in place. The Cabinet Office needs to work closely with the Department of Communities and Local Government—and, I would argue, directly with Portsmouth city council.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I start by echoing the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), a member of the Backbench Business Committee, to all the members of his Committee and the staff who support its work. We have had an interesting first chapter to this debate and I shall try to provide substantive responses to each contribution.
First, I turn to the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who both spoke passionately about social mobility and the contribution that community organisations make to delivering the big society. Unlocking social mobility is at the heart of the coalition Government’s agenda. We believe that a fair society is one in which opportunities are detached from origins and everyone has the chance to do well regardless of their background. If everyone can fulfil their potential and people’s talents are unlocked, our economy will also benefit.
However, we should recognise that social mobility trends in the UK are not encouraging. There is evidence that social mobility declined for people born in 1970 in comparison with those born in 1958. Data from the OECD show that, relative to other countries, the earnings of individuals in the UK are strongly related to the earnings of their parents.
We want to reduce the degree to which patterns of advantage and disadvantage are carried across from one generation to the next. The Deputy Prime Minister is championing social mobility within the Government and is chairing a social mobility ministerial group to ensure cross-Government action. A social mobility strategy will be published early next year and several reforms that aim to improve social mobility are already in process. Alan Milburn has been appointed as the independent reviewer of social mobility, to keep us on our toes.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke, who said that the Government cannot improve social mobility by working alone. That is true. Individuals, civil society organisations, employers, community groups and other non-governmental organisations play a critical role in helping people to do well, regardless of their backgrounds. The three pillars of the big society—social action, community empowerment and reforming and opening up public services—will empower people to take control of their lives, and the rest of society, not just the state, will help them to do that.
The Government are committed to supporting the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector to take up opportunities and play its part in the big society. We want to recast the sector’s relationship with the state and give it a huge range of new opportunities to shape and provide innovative, bottom-up services and solutions where state provision has failed. We recognise that those opportunities will not emerge overnight and that, furthermore, spending reductions will also have an impact. We are making £100 million of transition grant funding available to front-line organisations over this and the next financial year to support the sector through this difficult period. That will give such organisations the breathing space that they need.
Ministers have also made three clear commitments to support the sector over the longer term. First, we will make it easier to run voluntary and community groups and social enterprises; secondly, we will put more resources into the sector; and, thirdly, we will make it easier for the sector to work with the state. Examples of our work in that area include the Lord Hodgson review into cutting red tape, and the big society bank, which will help to grow the social investment market and broaden the finance options open to the sector. We are consulting on proposals to improve infrastructure support for front-line civil society organisations in order to ensure that the Government’s investment in improving the capability of the sector in the future is appropriate and effective. That consultation closes on 6 January.
Mr Bone
When the Backbench Business Committee produced this pilot form of business, I did not know that we would have the novel experience of hearing a Whip at the Dispatch Box. I think it is my hon. Friend’s first time at the Dispatch Box, but he is doing a good job. I wonder whether we will be hearing from more Whips at the end of term. In many regards, he is doing much better than the normal Ministers.
Stephen Crabb
I think there was a compliment in there somewhere. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not an entirely novel experience. In the previous Parliament and in this Parliament, Whips have been deployed in a variety of ways, including at the Dispatch Box.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) raised the “knotty” issue of the West Lothian question. The Government have announced that they will establish a commission to consider that issue as part of their wider political reform. She referred to the answer to a question asked last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform, in which he said that the Government will make an announcement on the commission in the new year. I am happy to confirm that we do indeed mean 2011. That is very much part of our programme for next year. The issue has been around for at least 150 years, so I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire to bear with us and show patience, because it is important that we get the right solution to some difficult issues.
We are continuing to give careful consideration to the timing, composition, scope and remit of the commission. Its work will need to take account of our proposals to reform the House of Lords to create a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. There are changes being made to how this House does its business and there are developments in devolution, not least through the Scotland Bill before the House. As I have said, we will be making an announcement on that in the new year.
Two hon. Members addressed the issue of the 2011 census. We had powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). All hon. Members will be aware that the census takes place on 27 March. Accuracy of the census is very important, because it is used to allocate billions of pounds of public spending every year. The Office for National Statistics takes the census extremely seriously and is working very hard to ensure that the problems of undercounting experienced in 15 local authority areas in 2011, including in Westminster, are not repeated. The ONS is actively engaging with every authority to ensure that there is a successful census next year, and it has a partnership plan in place with each local authority. A plan for London as a whole has also been developed with the Greater London authority and the London boroughs.
Fiona Mactaggart
There is a partnership plan, but the problem is that it is a bit one-way. If it were a genuine partnership, local authorities that are trying to help improve the accuracy of the census would have more ability to contribute to the partnership. If the hon. Gentleman would tell the ONS that, we might have a better partnership.
Stephen Crabb
I assure the hon. Lady that the ONS will receive a full transcript of this debate. I am surprised by her remarks, because only last week, I think, the chief executive of Slough met the ONS to discuss the census. The leader of Westminster city council has also had meetings this year with the ONS on the topic.
On specific improvements to the census process, 35,000 field staff are allocated to areas where it has been hard to obtain responses in the past, particularly inner-city areas and areas of high migration and population change. There will also be a three-times greater effort by field staff to collect outstanding questionnaires than in 2001 and a four-times greater effort in London and some other urban areas, including Slough. Some 200 staff are working within their local communities to engage local residents and community groups, promote the census, encourage local people to apply for census jobs and arrange support and assistance for census completion where needed. Collecting details of second addresses in the census will improve the population counts in local authority areas, such as Westminster. Additional questions about national identity, the intention of migrants to stay and citizenship will support a more detailed understanding of migration and population in areas including Slough and Westminster.
Ms Buck
I am not seeking to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s in-depth knowledge on the census, but would he do me the great favour of asking the relevant Minister to write to me on the specific issue of recruitment? We have a genuine problem, and Westminster council’s briefing substantiates that. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) would also like to pursue the matter further with the relevant Minister.
Stephen Crabb
We will write to both hon. Members on a number of the questions they asked about the census. Recruitment is, overall, going very well. Recruitment of 4,000 special enumerator and census collector jobs began in September and is nearing completion; 67,000 applications have already been received. Recruitment of collectors began in November and is also progressing well, with 82,000 applications received so far for around 30,000 roles. Efforts are targeted in the small number of areas where allocations have been slower.
On the subject of the Queen’s diamond jubilee competition for city status, I pay tribute to the work, energy and commitment of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in supporting his local community’s bid. The last occasion to have been marked by granting city status was Her Majesty’s golden jubilee in 2002, when separate competitions were held in the devolved nations. That resulted in the granting of city status to one town.
Mr Speaker
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is correct. The time limit was an expectation that I stated at the outset, but the Chair will exercise judgment about when the debate should be concluded. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) is seeking to respond to points, and he may briefly continue to do so.
Stephen Crabb
I am grateful for your generosity and clarification, Mr Speaker. All previous competitions up to 2002 had been organised on a UK-wide basis. The golden jubilee competition was the only time when separate competitions were held for the devolved nations and for England. We regard the bestowing of city status as a signal honour and a rare mark of distinction. Something special will be lost if too many places are granted city status. The Government’s expectation is that only one new city will be created as a result of the diamond jubilee competition and, similarly, that only one existing city will be granted a lord mayoralty or lord provostship.
Pete Wishart
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is very difficult for Scottish cities to compete with English cities, given our different civic traditions and cultures? Does he also accept that if we are trying to ensure that a range of places across the United Kingdom are involved, there has to be more than one winner? Surely, if there is to be only one winner, the largest will naturally be the favourite.
Stephen Crabb
I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis at all on that. Every bid will be judged fairly on its merits. There are some strict criteria in place, the details of which are available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website. I hope that those criteria will allay some of his concerns.
I am sure that the tradition of referring to Perth as the fair city will continue, whatever the outcome of the competition. However, there is only one way to become recognised as a city in the UK: by having the honour conferred by the sovereign. That is the prize that awaits the successful entrant to the competition. I wish all potential entrants, including the fair city of Perth, the very best of luck.
Health
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I want to talk about support for the 6 million unpaid carers who provide social care to a family member or friend. More people are having to step in to provide high levels of care to family members. The 2001 census, about which we have heard so much today, found that 10% of all carers in the UK were caring for more than 50 hours per week, but figures published more recently by the NHS information centre show that that has now more than doubled to 22%. In Salford, the proportion has been much higher for some time: 24% of Salford carers cared for more than 50 hours per week in 2001, which was more than twice the national figure.
Carers are key partners in care for the NHS, but full-time care takes a toll on the carer’s own health, and their health needs should be recognised. Carers who care for more than 50 hours a week are twice as likely to suffer ill health as the general population, and those caring for a person suffering from dementia or stroke disease are also more at risk. Importantly, carers who do not receive a break from caring are much more likely to suffer mental health problems—that is, 36% of carers compared with 17% who do get a break.
The Government have announced £400 million of funding for carers’ breaks over four years, to be delivered through primary care trusts initially, but there are problems with this because the funding is not ring-fenced. The Labour Government allocated £150 million over three years to primary care trusts for carers’ breaks, but a survey by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers in 2009 found that less than a quarter of the first tranche of that funding had been used as intended to support carers. Given the financial pressures that are now facing primary care trusts, and their impending abolition in the NHS reorganisation, it is hard to see them doing a better job for carers now than they did last year when they did not have those pressures. There is great concern among carers and carers’ organisations about the impact of the NHS reorganisation and cuts to local authority budgets. Carers UK says that carers are worried that when commissioning is handed over to GPs they will lose services on which they rely. Many carers have negative experiences of dealing with GPs who do not have a good understanding of social care or of the specialist conditions that are giving rise to the care.
There is also much concern about cuts to social care that councils are making in response to the 27% cuts in their budgets over the next four years. The cuts are front-loaded, so together with the loss of area-based grants that were targeted at deprived areas, councils such as those in my area of Salford will have to make cuts of £40 million next year alone. The Government are putting £2 billion into councils’ social care budgets over four years, but that is only half of the £4 billion that the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has estimated is needed to meet increasing levels of need. In addition, social care is one of the biggest areas of each council’s budget, yet the new money is not ring-fenced either, so councils are facing budget cuts of £5.6 billion over the same period. It is hard to imagine that social care will not be part of that.
We have already seen councils cutting funding to social care. Even before the comprehensive spending review, five councils with a “moderate” threshold were proposing to tighten their eligibility criteria to “substantial”. Birmingham council and the Isle of Wight have now proposed to raise their thresholds to meet critical needs only, and other councils are considering that. North Yorkshire county council plans to reduce its number of residential care homes by two thirds, and others are taking similar action. Councils are increasing their hourly rates for care and removing maximum weekly caps, which can mean charges doubling. For very many people, that will mean that the care is not available or they cannot afford it.
In Salford, we are very fortunate to have an excellent carers centre run by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, with Dawn O’Rooke as the manager and Julia Ellis doing a fantastic job as the primary care project worker. Staff there are concerned about what they see as a marginalisation of carers support services owing to the twin changes of GP commissioning and council budget cuts. Salford carers centre has worked with GP practices to enable GPs to identify many carers and refer them on for advice and support. That identification and referral can make a significant difference for carers in their getting benefits, using personal budgets and getting checks on their own health. However, with GPs handling commissioning, there will be significant extra pressures of time. One reads day in, day out about GPs being very concerned about that. There is a real fear that GPs in Salford will no longer prioritise the development of support for carers.
Given our record in Salford, I hope that our GP consortiums and the city council will continue to support carers’ services so that the excellent work can continue. However, with GPs handling commissioning, there will be significant extra pressures, and it is hard to see councils and GP consortiums up and down the country prioritising carer support when they have so many other calls on their time and resources. Many people rely on unpaid carers, and more will have to do so over time. It is projected that that figure will reach 9 million in 25 years’ time. I therefore urge Health Ministers to put their support for carers high on their agenda and to keep it there throughout 2011.
It is an unusual experience for me to speak in this pre-recess Adjournment debate rather than answer it, which is what I used to do. I think that the Deputy Leader of the House has opted out a little bit by cutting his work load. However, I would like to wish everybody a very happy Christmas.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to be speaking in this pre-Christmas Adjournment debate—my first. I offer season’s greetings to everybody.
When I was elected to this House, I promised that I would continue to fight to bring full maternity care back to Huddersfield Royal infirmary. I have already raised the issue in this House several times, and I welcome the opportunity to do so once again. The issue of maternity services in Huddersfield has been a very emotional and controversial topic in my constituency. Huddersfield Royal infirmary’s consultant-led maternity services closed in August 2008, and mums now have to be transferred to Calderdale Royal hospital if there are complications during birth. Many mums, though, are not taking any risks at all and opting to go to Halifax for all the birthing process. There is a new midwife-led unit at Huddersfield Royal infirmary, but mums want specialist and emergency care to be available there too. Many have got in touch with me through a Facebook group that I have set up. I have more than 7,000 members, and cases are being messaged through to me all the time from mums who have had bad experiences.
In an emergency, the time it takes to travel to Halifax from Huddersfield and my constituency can be the difference between life and death for mother and baby. I joined two of my constituents to set up a campaign group in memory of their little girl who died at just two days old. Following the closure of Huddersfield’s specialist maternity services, the mum had to be transferred to Calderdale for an emergency delivery. During that time, the baby suffered a lack of oxygen to her brain which resulted in severe brain damage. The young parents then had to make the heart-breaking decision to turn off her life support system after just two days. We do not know for definite that things would have been different if Huddersfield had had specialist care available, but the little girl would surely have had a better chance if that emergency care had been available closer to where the parents live. I pay tribute to the parents, Alanna and Glynn, who set up the campaign group, MOMS—Move Our Maternity Services back to Huddersfield—with me.
I welcome the opportunity to raise once again the issue of getting specialist maternity care back at Huddersfield Royal infirmary, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I applaud the new arrangements that will allow a Health Minister to respond to contributions on health.
Public health policy aims to help people live longer and healthier lives, so it is a matter of key concern to me and my constituents in Blaenau Gwent, where average life expectancy is still too low. In the July pre-recess Adjournment debate, I raised my worries about the Conservative-led Government’s reluctance to take forward Labour’s measures to curb smoking, their collapse in the face of food industry’s lobbying on food labelling and their hasty dismissal of minimum pricing for a unit of alcohol.
Sadly, the recent public health White Paper does not address my deep concerns. It sets out the scale of several significant problems. Britain has the highest rates of obesity in Europe. Smoking causes 80,000 deaths a year. A recent Alcohol Concern report showed that more than 92,000 children and young people under 18 were admitted to hospital for alcohol misuse between 2002 and 2009. Girls are more likely to need hospital treatment than boys. Diet-related disease costs the NHS £6 billion a year, alcohol abuse costs it £2.7 billion, and lack of exercise costs it £1.8 billion: a total of £10.5 billion.
Do we have a new, bold public health strategy to match that analysis? Apparently, there is a shift from nannying to nudging people to improve their health. It seems that commercial interests will dominate the partnership of those who will help us to be healthier. That is not good enough. The Independent reported recently that multinational companies dominate the Government’s public health policy. It discovered that 18 representatives of Mars, Diageo and other commercial interests attended the first public health responsibility deal meeting in September, dwarfing the representation of health and consumer groups. I do not trust commercial interests to nudge me or anyone else towards a healthier lifestyle.
I take issue with the pompous put-down that Labour opted for a nanny state. Labour recognised that the Government have a duty of care to keep the nation as healthy as possible. That duty is particularly important for our young people, and particularly for the young women who lie comatose on the streets on Friday nights, after binge-drinking sessions. Alcohol was described as the most dangerous drug in the UK in a paper published by The Lancet in November. The Government have a responsibility to take further measures to prevent alcohol abuse.
The brewer, Greene King, wrote to MPs recently:
“It is our long held view that a great deal of the UK’s antisocial behaviour stems from excessive drinking by a small minority of people, fuelled by the easy availability of alcohol from retail outlets, at very cheap prices. The solution must be proportionate to the problem and not penalise the majority of responsible drinkers.”
I concur with that statement and agree with the solution of a minimum price for alcohol. The British Medical Association supports that proposal, as does the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The Government have said that they support a ban on below-cost selling. However, if cost was defined as duty plus VAT, it would be too low to tackle irresponsible discounts in supermarkets. No measures have been put before Parliament to end below-cost selling. I believe a range of measures is necessary to tackle alcohol abuse. There may have to be restrictions on promotions. Alcohol Concern stated:
“As long as alcohol remains as heavily promoted as it currently is, young drinkers will continue to consume far more than they might otherwise, leading to inevitable health harms, wasting ambulance and police time.”
It is time we scrutinised the promotion of alcohol at cinemas, for example, where it is too easy for young people to be influenced.
I will talk briefly about measures to combat smoking. I was pleased that the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health called on the Government to prohibit the point-of-sale display of tobacco products, and the sale of tobacco from vending machines. Those measures have widespread support. As my local director of public health at the Aneurin Bevan health board wrote to me:
“Nearly one quarter of the population in Wales are smokers and most of them started to smoke as children. The average age at which young people in Wales start smoking is between 11 and 12 years.”
She ended her letter with a plea:
“please help to protect our children and future generations from a deadly addiction by ensuring that the government implements these laws”.
Finally, I will comment on the problem of obesity. Obesity cannot be tackled by weakening the Food Standards Agency and by cutting the Change4Life anti-obesity programme. Statistics on obesity show the need for more exercise. I am therefore glad that the Government have changed their policy on school sports provision in recent days, but more needs to be done. We must ensure that all children exercise regularly at school, not just those who are gifted enough to take part in competitive sport.
Nudging and soft partnerships, although helpful, are not sufficient. Self-regulation by supermarkets and tobacco companies will not deliver the better health and extra years that we hope for. Bluntly, if we do not act, the financial consequences for the NHS alone—the £10.5 billion that I referred to earlier—will be immense. Ministers must accept that meaningful regulation and taxation have a role—to rule them out is irresponsible and doctrinaire. The Government’s recent White Paper on health is not good enough for my constituents in Blaenau Gwent, nor for people across our country. We must do better than this.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this pre-Christmas debate. I have already exchanged seasonal greetings with your good self, Mr Speaker, and other colleagues.
I rise to speak about the integrated drug treatment system, which is the drug treatment system for people in prison. The issue came to my attention when I visited my local prison, Hollesley Bay. I do not want to get into the rights and wrongs of drugs today; that issue has been debated in Westminster Hall. I am more concerned about value for money and the diversion of funds from primary care trusts to the continuation of prisoners taking heroin substitutes, at the taxpayer’s expense.
In a recent Question Time, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice spoke of how important it is to get prisoners off drugs and to remove drugs from our prison estate. I fully endorse that view. Everybody was depressed in the mid-’90s when a judge ruled that it was against somebody’s human rights not to be allowed drugs when in prison. A number of hon. Members, including you, Mr Speaker, have raised questions on this topic. This is yet another example, dare I say it, of a conflict between the judiciary and the common sense of the general public.
The cost of the IDTS to the taxpayer for the last three years has been £23.8 million, £39.7 million and £44.4 million. I am sure that my local residents would love an increase in health spending of such an amount. Such funding for the three prisons in the Suffolk district area and the one in the Great Yarmouth borough and Waveney district area has risen from £400,000 to £555,000. In Hollesley Bay prison in my constituency, £190,000 is allocated to just one prisoner. It is astonishing that under this system, one prisoner can continue to have a heroin substitute every day, at the expense to other people of just less than £200,000. The figures show no sign of decreasing.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it cannot be right that we have inherited a system under which approximately 300 of the 1,000 prisoners in my major local prison of Durham are on methadone? The reality is that either we give them drugs on a prescribed basis, or they will obtain drugs illegally. What does she think we should do about that?
Dr Coffey
That is an extraordinary situation, and I am sure that the people of Hexham and Northumberland would be astonished to hear that the taxpayer is continuing to fund it.
I understand that Subutex, one methadone substitute, is highly valued and is traded in our prisons. Although I do not condone the policy of continuing to give methadone to prisoners, perhaps we should switch to liquid-only substitutes and remove the element of drug trading.
I cannot pretend that Suffolk is the most expensive part of the country for treatment costs. In Suffolk, the average cost per treatment is about £800. I am sure that the people of Cambridgeshire will be delighted to know that Whitemoor prison has been given a budget of about £312,000 from the PCT to pay for nine expected treatments, at a cost of £34,708 per treatment. That is scandalous in this day and age, and something has to be done. I hate it when politicians say that, but I genuinely believe that this issue is within our control and that we can do something about it.
When people come into prison, we should be trying not to continue their habits, but to get them off their habits. I understand that the primary reason we have switched increasingly to methadone prescription in drug treatment is that if people leave prison having been off drugs, they are more likely to have a bad reaction when they get their first fix. Perhaps I am a bit traditional, but my response to that is, “Tough!” I would rather that our precious NHS money was used on health care. I know that we are increasing the funds, but health care costs are also increasing. I dare say that the constituents of Suffolk Coastal would rather the money was spent on improving health care at Ipswich hospital. Despite the review by Professor Boyle, constituents in places on the coast such as Aldeburgh and Orford are still being put at risk, because if they have a heart attack the expected treatment time from when an ambulance is called to when it arrives is beyond the national guidelines. That is because there is not enough money to serve everybody.
I am not saying that we should not treat people to try to help them with their drug problem when they go into prison. In fact, I think it was the father of a famous pop star, whom I will not publicise, who said that one reason people commit offences is so that they can go into prison and get off drugs. I endorse that, and we should provide such help. Drugs are a scourge on the country because of the misery and crime that they generate.
I will conclude, because plenty of other Members want to speak about health. I could have addressed my points to the Ministry of Justice, but I believe that the Department of Health can move us forward and ask whether the situation that I have described is the best way to use our precious resources in the NHS.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
A merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House.
I was born in Wallsend in the 1960s, and my mother was born in Newcastle in the ’20s. What we had in common, which we share with any child of the north, was the impact of geography on our life chances. A child born in Newcastle today is expected to die five years before one born in South Cambridgeshire, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Health.
Of my mother’s six brothers and sisters, only one survived into adulthood. We have certainly made great strides since those dark days, but health is still a critical political, social and personal issue. Newcastle has world-beating hospitals—the Royal Victoria infirmary, the Freeman and the General hospital. We also have the Campus for Ageing and Vitality, the Centre for Life, the Great North children’s hospital and the Northern Institute for Cancer Research, but what we do not have is health equality.
The people of Newcastle are more likely to die early from cancer, heart disease or stroke. We tend to die younger, are more obese as children, and are more likely to die from the cold as pensioners. We suffer more from the diseases of our industrial legacy, such as asbestosis, and we are more likely to be born into poverty, experience mental illness and commit suicide. One in 25 adults in Newcastle claims incapacity benefit for mental illness, four times the rate in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Education.
I will be frank and say that I do not believe the last Government did enough to tackle the issue of mental health. It is the responsibility not only of health care providers but of social services, educators, the police and prison officers. The lack of co-ordination and support was tragically highlighted by the case of Raoul Moat earlier this year.
As a Newcastle MP, I consider my primary duty to be to work for the health and well-being of my constituents, so the existing inequalities concern me and I am worried that they will widen under the current Government. I hope that the Minister can offer me some reassurance. The previous Government doubled health funding in real terms, reduced waiting times and improved health outcomes. Deaths from heart disease and stroke went down by 40%. They also worked hard to tackle poverty and its associated evils, such as poor housing, low aspiration and unemployment, which all have an impact on health.
Improvements in those areas benefited the mental and physical health and well-being of all our constituents, but in Newcastle, inequalities have been maintained or even increased. In 1998, early death rates from heart disease and stroke were 19% higher in Newcastle than the national average. In 2007, they were 26% above a much reduced national average.
The last Government prioritised tackling health inequalities in 2006—too late, certainly, but as a result the North East strategic health authority, primary care trusts and hospitals are all working to address the problem. However, that is all set to change. The Government’s reforms to the NHS are estimated to cost £3 billion, without counting the cost of disruption and the loss of skills. Our strategic health authority and primary care trust are being abolished and funding will be in the hands of GP consortiums, of which Newcastle will host one of the first. The Government do not like targets, but will the Minister confirm that she expects the key measures of health inequality to reduce as a consequence of those changes? Will she also confirm that Newcastle will not have to pay anything for those reforms from its health allocation?
The Secretary of State recently wrote to me to say that the 2011-12 allocation for Newcastle represented a growth of 2.8%, including a change to the funding formula. Despite written questions, however, I have been unable to clarify how the changes will address health inequalities. The Government’s changes to formulas have tended to work against us in the north-east, so will the Minister confirm that more will be invested in health services for every man, woman and child in Newcastle in every year of the comprehensive spending review period?
Guy Opperman
Does the hon. Lady agree that the health service in Newcastle now covers not just her constituents in Newcastle but mine in Hexham, both because they are run by the same trusts and because the services are now so interdependent?
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Health services in Newcastle are accessed by a wide range of people from across the north-east.
Finally, the Minister will know that health depends on many factors. The Government’s wide-ranging cuts will have a negative impact on people’s health, especially the health of the most deprived. Cuts to fuel poverty reduction programmes such as Warm Front will leave pensioners in Newcastle cold, and therefore more vulnerable to illness. Cuts to area-based grants such as Supporting People mean that there will be less investment in support services for those with mental health problems, and cuts to the working neighbourhood fund mean that my constituents will have less help to get back into work, with all the health advantages that work brings.
I shall give the Minister a specific example. In Newcastle, about £10 million a year goes to charities to help deliver services for the vulnerable. The Government’s cuts mean that that figure will go down by 75%, which will have many consequences. One charity to which I have spoken estimates that it will have to close hostels, leading to the number of rough sleepers in the city rising by up to 500%. Rough sleeping obviously has terrible consequences for the health of the individual concerned, but Newcastle as a whole will also pay the cost. The police, health services, social services and the third sector will all have to focus more resources on those sleeping in the streets, reducing the help available to others—help that supports the health of the city.
There are many similar examples. Will the Minister assure me that she has assessed the impact of the cuts on Newcastle in the broadest sense, and that she is confident that the health inequalities between Newcastle and the rest of the country will be reduced over the term of this Government?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
May I convey my compliments of the season to all Members, and indeed to the staff of the House, who work so hard for all of us?
The reason for my contribution today is my long-standing commitment to the cause of raising the profile and interests of all children and adults who suffer from the lifelong conditions of autism, autism spectrum disorders and Asperger’s syndrome. I speak as a parent of a child on the spectrum, and as treasurer of the all-party group on autism.
I wish to urge the Government to refer autism to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as a key topic for a NICE quality standard, which would cover diagnosis, post-diagnostic support and support for those with co-occurring mental health problems. It is vital that at the stage when commissioning is handed over to GP consortiums, a national quality standard applies to help local commissioners act appropriately.
The National Autistic Society’s recent “You need to know” campaign revealed some startling statistics about children with autism and about child and adolescent mental health services, which are known as CAMHS. Some 71% of children with autism have a co-occurring mental health problem, and last year one in 10 children who used CAMHS had autism—that is more than 10,000 children. However, only one in three parents of children with autism who were surveyed thought that CAMHS had helped them. The problem is that professionals, no matter how dedicated they may be, often do not have enough information and understanding when it comes to meeting the needs of children and young people with autism. It places those people at a disadvantage for treatment in the health service.
There was some excellent news last week in the publication of statutory guidance for adults with autism as a result of the Autism Act 2009, and I welcome the carefully set out guidelines, which have been the subject of proper consultation. They have been strengthened and improved through lobbying by hon. Members and other organisations with a key interest. For example, particular emphasis is placed on the need for local child and adolescent mental health services to develop agreements with adult mental health services about the transition of children with autism who use those services into adult mental health care. We hear a lot about the problems of transition, and I am glad that concrete action is being taken. That will be welcome news for many children and young adults in Swindon and elsewhere.
A further enhancement of those guidelines in the form of a quality standard, together with commissioning guidelines, will increase and improve that provision even more. It has worked elsewhere. For example, for services for children with a learning disability, the introduction of a national indicator, a vital signs indicator and an annual health check all required self-reporting on training needs by the staff in child and adolescent mental health services. By last year, that resulted in almost all CAMHS services—98%; a remarkably good statistic—reporting that they provided specialist learning disability support. However, in sad contrast, only 10% of child and adolescent mental health services reported that they provided targeted autism support.
I accept that NICE is autonomous, but the National Quality Board’s prioritisation committee selects the topics for discussion and adoption as NICE quality standards, with referral by Ministers. The Government therefore have a role in being able to refer a topic for the adoption of a quality standard, which is more than a guideline because it builds on the guidelines to provide a framework for professionals. It will also help patients find their way around the system. Further, it will help NHS bodies to assess the quality of the service that they provide. That information, with evidence of best practice, will help commissioners to plan better services for the future.
I am extremely keen for those measures to be adopted at the earliest opportunity. I will revert to them as often as I have to in the new year if the message has not yet got through. I urge the Government to refer the proposals to NICE to help chart a brighter future for the treatment of children and young adults with autism in the health service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I welcome all the contributions. We have had an excellent run-around of some hon. Members’ interests and specific issues relating to their constituencies.
I start with the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). As she rightly pointed out, the Government have recently announced that they will provide additional funding of £400 million to the NHS in the next four years to enable more carers to take breaks from their caring responsibilities. I commend her for her continued interest in the subject. I trained as a nurse and worked in the NHS for 25 years, and the question is now, as it always has been: who cares for the carers? The hon. Lady is right to highlight the problems that carers suffer—the impact on their physical and mental health and well-being, as well as the immense emotional burden that many bear.
The spending review has made available additional funding in primary care trust baselines to support the provision of breaks for carers. The new moneys will go into PCT budgets from April 2011 and into GP consortium budgets from 2013. The 2011 NHS operating framework, which was published on 15 December, makes it clear that PCTs should pool budgets with local authorities to provide carers with breaks as far as possible via direct payments or personal health budgets, which will doubtless ensure some progress.
The new funding is part of a package of measures that we announced in the recently published update to the carers strategy. The next steps set out the priorities for action in the next four years, focusing on what will make the biggest impact on carers’ lives. It is important to recognise that the subject is of interest to hon. Members of all parties. I do not think there is division along party lines. The hon. Lady’s insight into and knowledge of what is happening on the ground will be important to ensure that future policy and direction is well informed.
Barbara Keeley
Will the Under-Secretary say more about what will happen if PCTs do not spend the money on carers’ breaks? The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is responsible for social care, campaigned in the House when the Labour Government had a similar problem. As I said earlier, the problem is that, according to a survey, only a quarter of the money had been spent on carers’ breaks. It is fine to allocate it, but the trouble is getting the PCTs to spend it.
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She is right to suggest that there can be an intention at Westminster, but the point is ensuring that it is effected on the ground. I will say a little more about that shortly.
We do not believe that a legislative approach is always the way to proceed when requiring health bodies and GPs to identify patients who are carers or have a carer and refer them to sources of help and support. Indeed, often it is not. We feel more comfortable with that as a weapon, but it does not necessarily produce the result that the hon. Lady wants.
It will be for PCTs and subsequently the GP consortiums to decide their priorities in the light of their local circumstances. However, we believe that GPs and their staff will play a vital role in identifying carers; many carers have not yet been identified. That is why we are investing £6 million from April 2011 in GP training, which will mean that more GPs and their practice teams gain a better understanding of carers and the support that they may need. That is important.
I believe that GPs are much better placed truly to understand the value and needs of carers. I do not need to tell the hon. Lady that the considerable social, human and, indeed, financial value that carers offer cannot be overestimated—she is aware of that. However, centrally driven methods are not always the best way forward. I welcome her continued feedback to ensure that we get the money spent where it is needed most.
Let me deal now with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney). I take the opportunity to pay tribute not only to midwives but to all the staff who will be working to deliver babies safely into the world, while we are enjoying our turkey or whatever we choose to eat on Christmas day.
The Government are committed to devolving power to local communities—to people, patients, GPs and councils—which are best placed to determine the nature of their local NHS services. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising the matter previously and for continuing to raise his constituents’ concerns.
The Government have said that, in future, clinicians and patients must lead all service changes, which should not be driven from the top down. To that end, the Secretary of State has outlined new, strengthened criteria that he expects decisions on NHS changes to meet. They must focus on improving patient outcomes, consider patient choice, have support from GP commissioners and be based on sound clinical evidence. I think that that was what my hon. Friend was getting at.
The Department has asked local health services to consider how continuing schemes meet the new criteria. Some will be subject to further review. That does not necessarily extend to reopening previously concluded processes, as in Huddersfield—I would not like to lead my hon. Friend down an alley—or halting those that have passed the point of no return, with contracts signed and building work started. However, NHS Yorkshire and the Humber has advised that the decision to implement the looking to the future programme and change in maternity services in Huddersfield was clinically driven, with strong emphasis on patient safety and quality of care. It was also made after considerable scrutiny and consideration, including a formal period of public consultation and advice to the then Secretary of State for Health from the independent reconfiguration panel, whose recommendations were endorsed in full.However, I know that my hon. Friend will continue to gather local evidence and experience and feed it back, which I welcome.
Let us look at the problem described by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith). I disagree with much of what he said. We have a bold public health strategy for the first time, and it has been widely welcomed. He should not believe everything he reads in the newspaper—it could lead him into all sorts of misapprehensions. The Government alone cannot improve public health; we need to use all the tools in the box.
The hon. Gentleman should note that health inequalities grew, rather than decreased, under the previous Government. There are massive opportunities to improve public physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health and well-being in England. As he rightly pointed out, we have some of the highest obesity rates of any country in the world. People living in the poorest areas die on average seven years earlier than people living in richer areas, and they have higher rates of mental illness, disability, harm from alcohol, drugs and smoking, and childhood emotional and behavioural problems. Changing people’s lifestyles and removing health inequalities could make double the improvement to life expectancy that we could make through health care, so we must address public health.
The Government published our strategy in our White Paper “Healthy lives, healthy people”. We will establish Public Health England, a national public health service, return public health leadership to local government, and strengthen professional leadership nationally by giving a more defined role to the chief medical officer, and locally through strong and inspirational leadership roles for directors of public health.
Historically, all the big public health improvements came via local authorities, and I am convinced that returning public health responsibilities to local authorities will achieve what we need, which is social and economic change as well as health change.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is of course welcome to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but she still has a few contributions to respond to, and we need to make some progress.
Nick Smith
I welcome the proposal to ask local authorities to take responsibility for public health—in the round, that is a good thing—but will they get the resources to do that job?
Anne Milton
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that I got rather carried away with this new-style debate, but I am mindful of the time.
For the first time, public health spending is ring-fenced. Public health interventions have been cut because of spending by PCTs, so it is really important to ring-fence such funding. The Government will focus on outcomes that are meaningful to people and communities. We published proposals for a public health outcomes framework yesterday for consultation, to which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to respond. I hope I have reassured him that the Government are taking the action necessary to improve the public’s health. I would be happy to discuss that with him in more detail another time, and perhaps to correct some of the myths that he believes. Nothing is ruled out. We will do everything we need to do to improve the public’s health, but we must use all the tools in the box. We cannot improve public health by Government intervention alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) raised the issue of integrated drug treatment systems for prisons that aim to increase the volume and quality of treatment available to prisoners. I welcome her involvement in her local prison. Such systems also aim to improve integration between clinical counselling, assessment, referral and through-care services, and to reinforce continuity of care when prisoners are released into the community.
The Government must reshape drug treatment to focus on recovery and to improve the continuity of treatment in the community following release. Abstinence is where we need to go. As outlined in the Ministry of Justice Green Paper on sentencing reform and rehabilitation, and in accordance with the much more outcome-focused approach announced in the new drug strategy, a payment-by-results approach to commissioning drug treatment for prisoners on release will be trialled in two areas. Recovery wings will be trialled in four prisons, with an emphasis on offenders receiving short custodial sentences, who therefore require a co-ordinated approach from prison and community. The combining of prison drug budgets with the combined drug interventions programme and a community-pooled treatment budget will allow for great flexibility, which is what we need in configuring services. To my mind, we have failed adequately to address drug abuse and prisoner addiction, and in turn failed our communities. We have not spent much-needed resources well.
I probably answered many of the points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) in my answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent on public health more generally. My husband’s family are all from Hartlepool. The hon. Lady was right to raise the issue of health inequalities. “Healthy lives, healthy people” underlines the priority that we are giving to tackling inequalities and supporting the principles of the Marmot review. We are focusing on the health and social needs of disadvantaged groups and areas, including on how money is allocated to local communities for public health interventions.
Despite the fact that the previous Government doubled health funding, as the hon. Lady rightly said, health inequalities got worse. I do not think that that was because of a lack of commitment on Labour’s part. It is extremely difficult to tackle health inequalities head-on, which is why our White Paper is so widely welcomed. The action outlined in that paper will reduce those truly shocking health inequalities.
It is important to recognise that this is not just about the money that is spent, but about how it is spent. I welcome the hon. Lady’s non-partisan comments about the previous Government’s record. For the first time, we are consulting on public health and ring-fencing money, and I believe that we can make a real difference.
The last Back-Bench contribution was from my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on autism. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the parents and carers—young and old—who care for children and adults with autism. For some, that is a considerable burden that we should not underestimate. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is currently developing three autism clinical guidelines. The recognition, referral and diagnosis of autism guidelines are scheduled to be published in September next year; the diagnosis and management of autism in adults guidelines are scheduled to be published in July 2012—that might feel a long way off, but it is coming—and the management of autism in children and young people was referred to NICE by Ministers in November this year.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his interest in autism, which has been discussed on many occasions in the House since I became a Member. There is no doubt that the expertise and input of people like him—people who have personal experience—is crucial in ensuring that we get the right policies that can have an effect on the ground, including in his constituency. His expertise and that of other hon. Members is critical.
Mr Speaker, I apologise for going beyond my allotted 10 minutes, but I wish you and all the staff of the House a very happy Christmas. I thank them for all their support this year and wish them well for the next.
Education
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to wish you a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker?
I understand that the pre-Christmas recess Adjournment debate was often a cheerful occasion. Unfortunately, the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance does not lend itself to festive cheer. In fact, it has much more of the Dickensian Christmas about it. Perhaps the House can imagine the Minister trudging back to his Department through the snow and sitting in his office, where he is visited by the ghosts of Christmases past, present and future.
In Christmas past, the jolly folk of the Department for Children, Schools and Families invested in young people. There were rosy cheeks and smiling faces as extra teachers and teaching assistants were employed to work in brand new school buildings up and down the country. What would the ghost of Christmas present reveal? If he took the Minister on a journey to Nottingham, he would see more than 4,000 learners in receipt of EMA worrying about their futures. Half of them might be aware that the Government’s cuts mean that if they want to go on to university, they can expect to end up with debts of £30,000 or £40,000 when they graduate. They might also have seen last month’s increase in the number of 16 to 24-year-olds out of work, which took the youth unemployment total to 943,000—almost 20% —and one of the highest figures since records began in 1992. The other half might be wondering how they will manage the second year of their course once the EMA is withdrawn, and how they will cope without this essential help with the cost of travelling to college and with materials, books and lunches.
The Minister might also see Malcolm Cowgill, principal of Castle college in Nottingham, writing to his local MP to say:
“I believe that the Department for Education has made the wrong decision, that disadvantaged young people in Nottingham will suffer as a result of this decision, and that Ministers’ ambitions to raise the participation age to 18 will fail. I am concerned students will continue to enrol but the extra burden of earning additional money will mean more students withdraw mid-course and do not achieve their aims.”
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes a powerful argument, but would it not be better to concentrate the support on the 12% who say that they would not continue in education if they did not get the EMA, rather than spread it out among all young people?
Lilian Greenwood
The vast majority of those who receive EMA receive it at the highest level and are from the most disadvantaged families. They need that extra money. Whether they would stay in education or not, it is an important part of supporting them while they continue with their studies.
The Minister might also see my young constituent Kyle Simpson, a talented swimmer who is training for 22 hours a week, before and after college and competing at weekends, emailing his MP to say:
“My mum needs all the money she can get for my training fees. Education Maintenance Allowance really helped me and gave me an incentive to be at college and do my best. Now I don’t know what to do”.
The Minister might see New college in Nottingham, which has found that the EMA has increased participation, reduced the drop-out rate by 9% and seen success rates 8 % higher among those who receive it. The college concluded that without help to fund their travel, many learners would not be able to stay in further education or choose the course that was best for them. He might also hear the college’s principal Geoff Hall, who says:
“Education maintenance allowance has not only helped participation, it has also improved success. Surely this is too big a step, surely it should be phased so that we can take time to measure the impact?”
And what of Christmas future? If the Business Secretary does not bring down the Government, it could look very bleak indeed, including reduced social mobility, especially among those from ethnic minorities or one-parent families; fewer young people going on to further education or successfully completing their courses; and even higher youth unemployment, meaning another lost generation without the skills and education needed to secure the jobs of the future. Of course, it is not too late. Just as Scrooge realised the error of his ways, the Minister could still change his mind. After all, the Prime Minister has done so on school sports funding. The Minister can still decide not to decimate support for the most disadvantaged. I hope he will take the opportunity to spread a little Christmas cheer and agree to think again about this unfair, unproductive and unnecessary cut.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
May I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker?
I rise on an issue that continues to concern me greatly. I repeat my declaration of interest that I chair the justice for families campaign. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House wish to see the best possible outcomes for children who enter the care system. In trying to improve this, Tony Blair encouraged adoption, but made a big mistake along the way in miscalculating the percentage of children adopted from care.
Before I go any further, I should be precise about what I mean by “care”. When I say “in care”, I do not include those children voluntarily in care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. In 2005, for example, 8,600 children left care and 3,400 of those left through adoption. That is 39.5%. If I could get the Department to analyse the figures by age, it would be clear that the majority of young children are leaving care through adoption. In Scotland, however, only 17% of the children who left care in 2009 aged under five left care through adoption. I accept that this includes a broader category, but if we take the numbers and uprate them for population size, we see that England has a rate of adoption from care in excess of 50% more. That is more than 1,000 children a year in England who are adopted rather than returning to their parents.
It appears that the substantial shift, which was a result of the previous Government’s pressure on authorities to increase the number of adoptions, was that children left care through adoption rather than returning to their parents. I see this in terms of individual cases where the judgments at times defy reason. It can also be seen very clearly when comparing practice in Scotland with that in England.
The Department has refused to provide many figures about the English system although some are now trickling out. When the adoption targets came in, there was a net flow into care. That would imply that the adoption pressure did not result in additional children leaving care, but instead caused the destination to change. Because the adoption target was miscalculated, there has been a general belief that adoptions from care were only a low percentage. An article written by Alan Rushton in 2007 about adoption from care states:
“Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think that any wholesale moving of children from birth families into adoptive families is taking place. Adoption from care concerns just a small proportion (6%) of all looked after children in England.”
That is clearly a misunderstanding of the situation. The Department was reporting 6% for a figure that, properly calculated, was more like 40%.
The concentration on adoption also means a lack of child protection. Peter Connolly died in August 2007, but nothing much changed until the criminal prosecution in 2008. Some 7,400 children were taken into care to the end of March 2008, 8,200 in 2009 and 9,500 in 2010. However, often the wrong children were taken into care and more babies were suspected to have died from child abuse in calendar year 2009 than in calendar year 2008. In 2008, the figure for England alone was 47 babies and 97 other children. In 2009, that increased—notwithstanding the increase in numbers of children taken into care—to 75 babies and 111 other children. There are two sides to this problem and both are unacceptable. Although the adoption targets and financial incentives were scrapped from 1 April 2008, the practice is still skewed by the pressures that gave rise to the initial changes.
The children themselves are asking why their families have been split up. There was a meeting recently in the House, attended by the Minister of State with responsibility for children and families, at which a girl asked why her sister had been adopted and she had been banned from seeing her. Additionally, as children such as Winona Vamey and Tammy Coulter get older, they are acting to reverse the adoptions.
The aggressive way in which the courts have gone after families has created many refugees from the UK—mainly from England although there is one from Scotland. Susen McCabe, Kiel and Lucille O’Regan, Fran Lyon, Kerry and Mark McDougall, Sam Thomas, Emily Burgess, Sam and Vanessa Hallimond and Angela Wileman are only a few examples for whom emigration was necessary to fight the system. Sam Thomas made the mistake of coming back to England—Somerset—and her daughter has now been put up for adoption.
At the same time, the rights of mothers such as Rachel Pullen and Husan Pari to even contest their own cases are removed on the basis of expert reports saying they are too stupid but which are later found to be in error. However, the Court of Appeal passes these cases through on the nod. False allegations of satanism and Munchausen’s syndrome continue to be accepted by the courts without a legal right to a second opinion. Dr Fintan Sheerin, Professor Mary McCarron, Professor Cecily Begley and Dr Jo Murphy-Lawless from Trinity College, Dublin wrote to me recently asking why these cases still happen in countries that pride themselves on respect for human rights. My answer was that the courts do not always properly follow the law in hearings that are held in secret where people get imprisoned in secret for complaining about injustice.
All this is in fact inhumane. Given time, the European Court of Human Rights may point this out. However, I hope that the Government will respond to this more quickly. More work on analysing the SSDA903 return is needed. It is not acceptable to use the code “other” for something as important as this.
Journalists such as Christopher Booker, Camilla Cavendish, Sue Reid, Denise Robertson, Daniel Foggo and many more have raised concerns about how the system is a machine for miscarriages of justice, but it keeps steamrolling over families and children. Many of the families affected will be lighting Chinese lanterns as a protest on Christmas eve at 10 pm. They will include Phil Thompson, whose great-grandchildren were put up for adoption for no good reason by Walsall council.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and it might give him chance to catch his breath as he seems to be in a great rush. I do not wish to detract from the serious cases that he mentions, but does he recognise that in many cases in which children are adopted from care it is because of the serious problems in their families and the neglect and abuse that they have, sadly, suffered?
John Hemming
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There is a need for a care system, but it has to get things right. One of the reasons children are often taken into care is that the mother has been a victim of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid argues that we should protect the mother and child and keep them together, rather than say, “Oh, you as a mother have been a victim of domestic abuse. We are taking your child.”
This morning or late yesterday, I received an e-mail about Kirsty Seddon’s case in Oldham. She was brought up in care and essentially that has been used as an excuse to remove her child. Luckily, the European Court of Human Rights is taking the matter seriously, and has now written to the UK Government asking them to comment on the admissibility of her case. There is a fair chance that, whereas this has gone through the UK courts on the nod, it will end up being picked up by the ECHR.
Even if the Government fail to do something, Parliament should be able to act to identify what is going on. Things happen that defy reason, which is why people have to emigrate to get away from the system. I will not rest until Parliament or the Government act to stop these miscarriages of justice. Sadly, the family justice review does not seem to recognise the true situation. The Munro inquiry seems to have a better focus, but both inquiries are hobbled by not having enough members who are not part of the system. We have the usual “quis custodiet” question when the people who are substantially part of causing the problem are being asked to correct a problem that they themselves do not recognise exists. That needs to change.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and wish to raise the pressing issue of the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance, which will be reduced under the replacement scheme—the enhanced learner support fund—to a paltry 13% of its current funding.
I have been overwhelmed by the correspondence and representations I have received from young people, their families and teaching staff decrying the Government’s decision. We keep hearing from the Government that nine out of 10 students would still continue with their further education without EMA. It is incredibly frustrating to hear these figures continually being trotted out because the study that this premise is based on is flawed: it asked only young people who study in school sixth forms, rather than those in further education colleges, which the majority of EMA recipients attend. Furthermore, the students polled came predominantly from white backgrounds, which does not reflect the true national make-up of the learners who receive vital EMA support.
I met a number of different student groups in Liverpool on Friday, and I asked them whether they would have started their courses without the EMA. Unsurprisingly, they said that although they would have tried, they would not have been able to afford it. Every young person I spoke to said that they put their EMA towards their travel costs, which were anything between £2 and £4.50 a day, with some students travelling up to two hours a day to attend college. They spent the remainder of their £30 a week on lunch, stationery and materials for their courses.
On a visit to the university of Liverpool, I spoke with some final-year modern language students. I met a young person called Danielle, who said that she would never have gone to college without her EMA—and if she had not gone to college, she would never have gone to university. Now, however, Danielle is about to graduate with an excellent degree and has a bright future ahead of her. The evidence from Liverpool community college about the benefit of EMA, in stark contrast to the flawed study the Government keep referring to, is that the retention rate is 5% higher for those receiving EMA than for those who do not receive it. There is a lot of similar evidence from colleges up and down the country, and at the end of today’s sitting I will present a petition collected from Liverpool community college and signed by 2,500 young people and teaching staff from across Merseyside. I share their concerns that the Government’s plans to remove EMA will have dire consequences on post-16 education in the Merseyside city region.
I have four questions for the Minister. First, why have the Government broken their pre-election pledge to keep EMA? Secondly, will the enhanced learner support fund cover students’ travel costs—a vital element of how the EMA is used? Thirdly, may we have a definitive answer on what will happen to students who have started their first year at college on the understanding that they will receive EMA throughout their course? Will they continue to receive it in their second year? Finally, according to the Government’s own figures, 76,000 young people stay on in further education because of EMA, saving the Government more than £4 billion on young people not in education, employment or training. How do the Government reconcile those figures with their continued reference to “dead-weight”—a term that many people have found incredibly offensive?
EMA offers so many young people from low-income households the opportunity to study without financial strain, and in many cases that can make the difference between a student achieving at college and not. The loss of EMA will damage our country’s economic future and is yet another betrayal of young people, in addition to many of the measures introduced over the past couple of months, whether on tuition fees, the loss of the future jobs fund and so on—the list goes on. I urge the Government to reverse their decision to abolish EMA.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The abolition of the education maintenance allowance is one of the issues that have caused greatest concern in my constituency. One of my constituents from Thornton wrote to me to say that he has signed the petition in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). He wrote:
“I am writing to you in my capacity as an employee of a large FE establishment in North Liverpool”—
and as one of my constituents. He continued:
“I have recently become increasingly alarmed at the ConDem’s plans to scrap Educational Maintenance Allowance for FE students. Given recent developments in the HE sector and last week’s student protests in London, it would seem that scrapping of the EMA is simply another plan to further undermine the education sector as a whole and, in many cases, to deprive learners of their right to an education. Although the abandonment of the EMA may have a lesser impact in more affluent areas, its effects will be felt much more in areas such as your constituency where an above-average number of learners are indeed in receipt of EMA. The ConDem’s plans to ‘bolt on’ a much lesser amount to the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will of course minimise the number of learners in receipt of financial assistance, and learners may be faced with finding other means of supporting themselves, and I have no doubt that some of these means may be less than legal.”
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My hon. Friends are making a good case for the education maintenance allowance, but does my hon. Friend share my concern about young carers? College principals might not even know that some of their students are young carers, who need the incentive that EMA can give them to keep attending and to struggle on with their caring work load as well as their education.
Bill Esterson
Young carers are one of a number of vulnerable groups for whom EMA is especially important, and its loss would hit them and those who depend on them particularly hard. I hope that the Minister will consider that point among others.
My constituent told me that some of the means by which students will support themselves might be less than legal. He said that that was
“an opinion that I have heard in person on more than one occasion from students themselves”.
I have also heard similar comments about the potential of drug dealing as a source of income for students who lose EMA. I thought his was a balanced and responsible view of the impact of EMA from a member of staff with much experience.
The principal of Hugh Baird college in south Sefton, Jette Burford, also wrote to me saying that 84% of young people at the college currently receive EMA; that there is a clear indication that it has become a key part of the family income for those families; and that its discontinuation is very likely to impact on the participation rate locally. Ms Burford mentioned both the impact of losing the EMA on participation and attainment, and the fact that many students depend on it for help with their transport. When she wrote to me she did not know that Sefton students were likely to lose their free travel passes because Merseytravel has had its budget cut by two thirds.
EMA is essential for many students from low and middle-income families when it comes to travel, books, equipment and food, and its loss will make it very difficult for students to continue to study. EMA is a means-tested allowance of between £10 and £30 per week. Some 635,000 learners received at least one EMA payment in 2009-10, and about 80% of those received the full £30. That means that the people receiving the £30 come from low-income families on less than £20,800 per year. The loss of EMA for students from such low-income households will create a big hole in family incomes, which college principals have commented on.
EMA was introduced by the previous Labour Government to help with the cost of books, travel and equipment, and payments are made on the condition that students attend classes regularly. The evidence from colleges is that the incentive to turn up on time has worked well, and the evidence in Merseyside is that those on EMA outperform by 7% those who are not in receipt of it. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies gives a similar result.
The Department for Education is stopping new EMA at the end of this month, before it has alternative arrangements in place. The Department plans to stop paying the EMA in July 2011 to existing 16 to 18-year-old students who will be halfway through their courses. That means that EMA will be completely gone by July 2011—an unseemly rush. EMA has been widely credited with helping to create a big increase in the number of young people going on to college in the last seven years. The IFS revealed that EMA increased the proportion of 16-year-olds in full-time education by 4% and the proportion of 17-year-olds in full-time education by 7%.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Newham sixth-form college in my constituency has the largest percentage of students receiving EMA. When I spoke to those at the college last week, they informed me that, in order to stay on at school, many students just handed the £30 a week to their families.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the impact on family incomes, not just on the incomes of individual students.
The Association of Colleges continues to make it clear to Ministers and MPs that it thinks that the decision to abolish EMA will have a detrimental effect on recruitment, retention and achievement among 16 to 18-year-olds. A number of trade unions are also worried that axing EMA will mean that colleges are hit by further funding cuts—cuts that will put even more college jobs at risk. The coalition argues that 90% of the cost of EMA is “dead-weight”, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, that is an offensive statement to many students. It implies that students would have gone on to study without EMA. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Research by 157 large colleges and other, smaller colleges shows that students who receive the EMA have better attendance records and are more likely to complete courses than wealthier students who are not eligible for support. That research was published in The Times Educational Supplement on 3 December. Despite coming from the poorest families and, in some cases, having low qualifications, EMA students miss fewer classes and are more likely to stay in education than wealthier students. The IFS has confirmed that the costs of EMA are completely offset by the benefits, even taking into account the so-called “dead-weight” effect.
EMA has been a big success for students and the economy. It has improved the life chances of many, from low or middle-income families. EMA has improved this country’s skills base, because of the improved results among students receiving it, and has increased access to university for many, many students. The case for abolition is flawed, as it will see a cut in attendance that will not be addressed by the enhanced learner fund. As one college principal said to me, there is no way of knowing which students would stop attending and which would carry on if EMA was withdrawn. A review of EMA would be one thing; its abolition quite another. The coalition needs to withdraw its plans and it should continue with the widespread support for our young people that EMA promotes.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on getting so much into such a short speech. I know that he has a long-standing commitment to family justice, and it was clear from his speech that he shares the coalition’s commitment to ensuring that children in this country are able to enjoy safe, happy and carefree childhoods—an ambition that is shared across the House, as is our desire to give every child the chance to achieve to the very best of his or her abilities. In responding to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech, I want first to make the point that this Government recognise the importance of keeping families together. The law is clear: children should live with their parents wherever possible and, where necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together.
John Hemming
The difficulty is that it does not appear that the law is being followed. Will the Department establish an ombudsman scheme to review individual cases and see why the law is not being followed?
Mr Gibb
I know that my hon. Friend is meeting our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education on 12 January, and I am sure that he can raise that with him at that meeting.
In most cases—indeed, the vast majority of cases—the extra support enables children to remain with their families. However, we are equally clear that there has to be balance in the system, so that where a child is suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm, the local authority has a statutory duty to take action to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. However, it is important to remember that local authorities cannot remove children from their parents’ care—unless it is with the parents’ consent, of course—without first referring the matter to a court. Similarly, local authorities cannot—again, without the parents’ consent—place a child for adoption with prospective adopters without a placement order made by a court. Needless to say, adoption can be a highly emotional time for the child, the parents and those adopting, but we know that outcomes—certainly in educational attainment and health—are as good for children who are adopted as they are for children growing up with their birth parents.
John Hemming
Given that about a quarter of adoptions are disrupted, and the children are returned to care, does my hon. Friend take on board the point that any statistical test of the effect of adoption should include the effect on those for whom it fails?
Mr Gibb
The figures are based on comparing the overall statistics for children in care with those for children who are adopted.
Although we recognise that adoption will be suitable for only a relatively small number of children, it is none the less important that we get things right and help more children who need adoption to find secure and happy homes with adoptive parents. We believe that one of the best ways of achieving that is through more collaborative working with voluntary adoption agencies, so that adoption services are enhanced and families are found for the most difficult-to-place children. We also want to see improvements in adoption practice, particularly in the matching of black and minority ethnic children with prospective adopters. Race should not be a barrier to a successful placement. What matters is a loving and stable family environment. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has written to all directors of children’s services and lead members to ask them to do everything possible to increase the number of children appropriately placed for adoption, and to improve the speed with which decisions are made.
John Hemming
The Minister said that adoption is suitable only for a small number of children. The difficulty is that a majority of under-fives in care are adopted.
Mr Gibb
I am not sure whether those statistics are right, but, again my hon. Friend can take that up with the Under-Secretary at his meeting. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has set up a ministerial advisory group on adoption, to provide expert advice on a range of practical proposals to remove barriers to adoption and reduce delay, but I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has raised.
Bill Esterson
The Minister made an important point about the involvement of voluntary sector agencies in adoption—indeed, I have been pleased with all his comments on the subject. However, does he accept that it is important to ensure both that proper financial resources are in place for the adoption process and that no short cuts are taken? That is where things can go horribly wrong.
Mr Gibb
Of course financial resources are always important, but the hon. Gentleman must appreciate the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. That was noticeably lacking both from his speech and those of his hon. Friends.
I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. We need to ask hard questions about child-protection arrangements and court processes. That is why we have the review by Professor Munro, which is looking at safeguarding, front-line practice and transparency. I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech carefully. We are concerned that the number of children in care adopted in the past year has decreased by 4%, to 3,200. The real question that we should be asking is not whether too many children or, indeed, too few are in care, but simply whether the right children are in care. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is extremely concerned that, by not understanding that point, we risk undermining the work of the many excellent professionals on whom we rely to keep vulnerable children safe—or, worst of all, that we risk damaging the chances of many children who would greatly benefit from a second chance of a stable family upbringing.
I would like to turn to the points raised by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). The speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham South took the theme of “A Christmas Carol”, and perhaps if the previous Government had learned a little from the accounting techniques of Ebenezer Scrooge, this country might not now have the worst budget deficit of all the G20 countries. I listened carefully to the hon. Members, but not one suggested how we should try to find £0.5 billion of savings from the public sector, let alone the £81 billion for the structural deficit that we have to close.
We face an unprecedented budget deficit, under which we are spending £156 billion a year more than we receive in tax revenue, and a global economic environment in which the sovereign debt of nations running unsustainable deficits is leading to major financial crises for those countries. Those crises are preventing and delaying economic recovery, and we do not want this country to be in that position. Every element of public spending is therefore subject to scrutiny, and programmes that cost £0.5 billion a year cannot be exempt from that scrutiny.
We need to ensure that the young people who need support to continue their education receive it. In the current climate, however, those who need it cannot be regarded as 45% of the whole cohort, and the money needs to be better targeted. That is why we are introducing a different system of student support that will allow schools and colleges to provide help to those young people who genuinely need it in order to stay in education.
The education maintenance allowance has been in existence for about six years, having been rolled out nationally in 2004 following a pilot. In its early years, it was successful in raising participation rates among 16-year-olds from 87% in 2004 to 96% this year. As a consequence, attitudes among 16-year-olds to staying on in education have changed. When the National Foundation for Educational Research questioned recipients of EMA, it found that 90% would have stayed on in education regardless of whether they received the allowance, although the £30 a week received by the majority of EMA recipients is a helpful sum for a young person.
Lilian Greenwood
Does the Minister accept that, even if 88% of young people would have stayed on in education anyway, the EMA encourages better attendance and allows learners to enjoy more study time, because they do not need to take on part-time work? It has therefore been important in improving the success rates for that disadvantaged group.
Barbara Keeley
I made a point earlier about young carers. I fail to see how a discretionary fund can help when young carers are so hidden. College principals and head teachers often do not know when their students are also carers, so how will they know how to target the funding? They will not.
Mr Gibb
The hon. Lady raises a wider issue about young carers. The coalition Government are concerned about young carers generally, not just in sixth forms and in colleges but in schools, and we are identifying those young people to ensure that they have the support and help that they need. When they attend college and seek help, however, the funds should be targeted at those who are in genuine need, including young carers.
In reaching the decision to reform the system, we were concerned that the 10% of recipients who according to the evidence would be put off from staying in education but for the money from the EMA might then drop out of education. We felt that a payment designed as an incentive to participate was no longer the right way to ensure that those facing real financial barriers to participation got the support they needed. So we decided to use a proportion of the £560 million to increase the value of the discretionary learner support fund. Final decisions about the quantum of that fund have still to be taken, but we have spoken of up to three times the current value of the fund, which now stands at £25.4 million.
A fund of that size would, for example, enable 100,000 young people to receive £760 each year, and 100,000 students is about 15% of the number of young people currently receiving EMA, which is more than the 10% about whom we are particularly concerned might not stay on in education. The £760 is more than the average annual EMA of £730 paid in 2009-10, and only slightly less than the £813 paid to 16-year-olds receiving the full £30 per week. We have not yet decided, because we are still consulting on it, how the money will be paid, to whom and for what purposes.
Luciana Berger
Liverpool community college currently pays out £1.7 million in education maintenance allowance to 90% of its students, who are in receipt of the full £30 a week because their household incomes are less than £20,800. In addition, the college disbursed £192,000. If the Minister is saying that he will multiply the current figure by three, that is still only a fraction of what goes to those most deprived households at the moment. How on earth is that going to help those students who desperately need help to get to college, to eat and to pay for the materials that they need to do their courses?
Mr Gibb
By definition, if students at that college constitute the 15% most deprived young people, in terms of their access to income, they will receive more than the amount the hon. Lady says is currently being received by the discretionary learner support fund.
To help schools and colleges to administer the fund, and to ensure that those young people who really need support to enable them to continue their education or training post-16 get access to the new fund, we are working with schools and colleges, and with other key organisations such as the Association of Colleges, Centrepoint, the Sutton Trust, the Association of School and College Leaders, the National Union of Students and the Local Government Association to develop a model approach that schools and colleges can choose to adopt or adapt, to inform them how to distribute the funds, and to whom.
Bill Esterson
The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear that, even taking into account the deadweight effect of the 12% who might carry on attending without EMA, the costs of the scheme are outweighed by the benefits. I quoted a college principal in my speech, and colleges are clear that they will be unable to work out who would stop attending if EMA were withdrawn. I would therefore be interested to hear from the Minister how the new system is going to work. He says that he is talking to the colleges, but how will he ensure that the new fund reaches the right students?
Mr Gibb
On that last point, the colleges are already experienced in administering the learner support fund. We are simply increasing the value of that fund, and the same college principals and head teachers will be administering it. We are talking about a significantly higher sum, however, and we will allow more discretion in the disbursement of the money, which is why we are talking to the Association of Colleges and others about how to administer it more fairly. Also, 5% of the fund will be available to cover the cost of administration.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central talked about the IFS research, as did other hon. Members. The IFS study says that the cost of the EMA scheme would have been recouped in the long run by helping to raise wage levels as a result of higher staying-on rates. I understand that argument, and I do not disagree with it. However, the IFS, in evaluations carried out with the Centre for Research in Social Policy, has previously said that EMA would increase participation by 4 percentage points, and up to 9 percentage points for young people from the poorest backgrounds. So the IFS’s own findings are consistent with the Department’s findings, and with the NFER’s conclusion that 90% of young people receiving EMA would have continued in education regardless of the payments. For those who really do need help to participate in post-16 education—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The House is well aware that we have tried to keep Ministers to 10 minutes, but we have now drifted over the 15-minute mark. I am sure that the Minister will have taken that on board, as he now comes to the end of his speech .
Mr Gibb
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and to the House. I have probably taken too many interventions. I just want to cover one more point before I finish, and that is the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree about transport.
Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that no young person in their area is prevented from attending education post-16 because of a lack of transport, or support for it. If that duty is not being met, young people and families need to raise it with the local authority. Young people were never expected to use a significant proportion of their EMA to cover transport costs. Under the current arrangements for discretionary support funding, it cannot be used routinely for transport to and from college because local authorities have that statutory duty. However, we will consider introducing flexibility to that restriction as we develop the arrangements for enhanced discretionary learner support funding.
In today’s economic climate, we have a particular duty to ensure that we continue to invest where investment is needed and to obtain the best possible value for taxpayers’ money. In those circumstances, it is difficult to justify spending over £560 million a year on an allowance when 90% of its recipients would have stayed in education without it. That is why we have thought again about the most effective way of helping the most vulnerable young people to stay in education.
I wish all Members, and officials from the Department, a very good Christmas and a successful new year.
Treasury
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to highlight the need for a more co-ordinated approach to the teaching of financial capability to ensure that no young person leaves school without the benefit of that critical life skill.
Financial capability can be briefly described as the ability to manage one’s own finances and to become an informed consumer of financial services. Some excellent work is being done in schools, and I shall refer to it shortly, but more needs to be done. The delivery of financial education in schools is patchy, as there is no requirement to provide it. My son Samuel will leave his excellent school in a few months’ time without having received a single lesson in financial education, although the term PHSE stands for “personal, health, social and economic education”.
Before I go into more detail, let me emphasise that I am a proponent of prevention rather than cure, and that I recognise the vital effort that goes into counselling people out of debt. However, I believe we have a problem that a co-ordinated approach to financial literacy will do much to alleviate. All Members are aware of the high levels of personal debt and the untold stress that much of it causes. Each day a staggering 372 people are declared bankrupt, and citizens advice bureaux are currently dealing with some 9,400 new debt problems every working day. A recent survey by another highly effective debt advice organisation, Christians Against Poverty, showed that 74% of its clients had visited a GP while suffering from stress and other medical problems caused by debt.
I have had 20 years’ experience of running a law firm, and during that time the biggest single cause of marital discord among those entering my firm’s doors seeking divorce advice has been money differences. Sadly, many couples enter relationships without being capable of addressing financial challenges together. It is partly because I have witnessed those problems for many years, and the huge personal cost that they entail, that I raise this issue today.
The cost to the national budget of dealing with the ramifications of poor financial literacy must be vast, not only because of relationship breakdowns but because of the implications for the health of individuals and families. A recent study by Aviva and a leading psychologist at City university found that those with sensible financial plans were happier overall and had a stronger sense of financial well-being, and that that was the case regardless of salary.
I believe that the big society, represented by both voluntary and commercial organisations and by government locally and nationally, can work together effectively to give young people and their parents the tools to draw up positive and informed financial plans that will help to secure their future happiness. The need for that is pressing.
Let me offer an example of best practice. Two years ago in my constituency Will Spendilow, a former chief IT architect for Barclays bank, started to visit Congleton high school and Eaton Bank school in my constituency on a voluntary basis. He helps GCSE and A-level students to understand the importance of financial planning, using the DebtCred curriculum, one of many that are available. It empowers children to set life goals and choices, helps teenagers to articulate their short-term and long-term financial goals, and helps students to budget by explaining what proportion of a wage is spent on essentials. Young people learn about the implications and the costs of borrowing; they also learn how to read a bank statement, put together a budget, and distinguish between financial products.
Mr Spendilow’s work has been received enthusiastically by schools and recognised by the high sheriff of Cheshire, Diana Barbour, who has congratulated him on his “sterling achievements”. At the end of one of his classes a teacher said to the young people, “That is the best and most valuable PHSE lesson that you have ever had.” However, when I asked Mr Spendilow what provision there would be if he did not teach financial capability, he said that he did not know of any.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising a subject that I consider to be tremendously important. I particularly endorse what she has said about Christians Against Poverty and the citizens advice bureaux, which operate in my constituency. Does she share my huge disappointment that there is no Treasury Minister present to respond—[Interruption.] I was not aware that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) was a Treasury Minister. Is he the Treasury Minister who will respond to the debate?
Fiona Bruce
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I believe that financial literacy is an essential element of every young person’s education. Including it in the curriculum would decrease the cost to so many people—and to the nation—of personal debt, family breakdown and ill health. Even more important, it would enable all young people to embark on adulthood with a vital tool, and to realise their full potential in life. I hope that the Minister agrees that this is a vital issue that we need to address sooner rather than later.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to send a Whip rather than a Minister to respond to the debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Members may be disappointed that no Treasury Minister is present, but let me say in fairness that the Whip is a Minister. He is part of the Government, and he has the right to speak from the Front Bench. That is the position. There may be disappointment, but I am sure that we shall hear full and thorough answers. We all look forward to the response from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill).
Fiona Bruce
Let me end by saying that I know my concerns are shared by a number of Members, and that I look forward to hearing the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) shortly.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
I wish to raise the issue of the funding settlement for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for two reasons. First, it is important to my constituents, many of whom work in the Cumbernauld branch of HMRC, one of the largest tax offices in the country. Secondly, it is important to the nation for our tax to be collected efficiently and effectively.
I have several questions for the Minister about the settlement that HMRC received in the comprehensive spending review. It mandates overall resource savings of 15% and efficiency savings of 25%. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified the precise meaning of those two figures. To what budget does the 25% refer? What proportion of the 15% overall resource saving will be met from efficiencies, and what proportion will be met through a reduction in the scope of HMRC’s activities? How does the Minister define an efficiency saving? And—this is the most important question for my constituents in Cumbernauld—what is the Minister’s most recent estimate of the number of redundancies that he expects at HMRC across the country during the spending review period, and what proportion of them will be compulsory?
Will the Minister confirm that neither the £900 million for combating tax avoidance nor the £100 million for reducing error, both of which were announced in the comprehensive spending review, will be additional money for HMRC? Will he also explain whether the figures refer to annual allocations, or to money redirected to these purposes over the entire spending review period? How does the Minister expect HMRC to achieve such a redirection of resources, in the context of significant cuts to its overall resource budget?
I would like to place HMRC’s funding settlement in a broader context and draw attention to some specific problems faced by my constituents working in the Cumbernauld office.
Mr Umunna
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the hugely increased bureaucracy that HMRC will have to deal with because of the change to child benefit, which will require HMRC in some sense to monitor the incomes and outgoings of millions of families across the country?
Gregg McClymont
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which speaks to the overall context in which HMRC will be operating.
We know that there is no direct correlation between reduced funding and increased output. The productivity of individual public servants can increase, but overall output can still decline. There comes a point when any organisation can no longer do more with less. If resources are reduced too far and too hastily, it will end up doing less with less, even if productivity increases. Does the Minister accept that it will be extremely difficult to deliver the additional revenue and improved customer service that we need from HMRC in the context of large reductions in overall expenditure?
Many of the savings that the Government talk about will be made through redundancies and restructuring. Staff motivation and industrial relations at HMRC are already poor. These problems have been recognised by HMRC, which was the subject of heavy criticism in the capability review published by the Cabinet Office in 2009. The review found that only 25% of HMRC staff, compared with 61% of senior civil servants, were proud to work for the Department. In the 2009 staff survey, only 11% of all staff and 17% of senior civil servants felt that change is well managed in HMRC.
We know that working in HMRC is often a difficult job. Dealing with people who are recalcitrant in paying their tax is, I suggest—without direct experience of it—often not much fun, yet staff morale is extremely important. I worry that a combination of low staff morale and further funding cuts is likely to lead to further problems for HMRC. Staff in Cumbernauld, for example, are deeply concerned about the restructuring that is taking place among staff in the benefits and credits section, a reform that is taking place two years ahead of the planned move to universal credit.
These staff have been threatened with compulsory relocation to other tax offices in East Kilbride and Livingston, a source of particular concern for staff with child care and caring responsibilities. I hear that there are fewer jobs available in these new offices than there are posts in Cumbernauld. Staff who are not redeployed might be labelled as surplus, with an uncertain future. Staff in payroll and human resources for the whole of HMRC are also based in Cumbernauld. They are extremely concerned about potential redundancies following the introduction of next generation human resources.
Does the Minister expect that these changes will result in redundancies in Cumbernauld, or will the Cumbernauld office perhaps expand its functions and its staffing? More broadly, can he give us an assurance that HMRC will improve the manner in which it manages change in its organisation?
Finally, I would like to ask a broader question about HMRC’s strategic vision. Does the Minister accept that there is a tension between announcing Britain’s business- friendly credentials to the world and cracking down on tax evasion, particularly by companies and wealthy individuals? In particular, what view does he take of the remarks that David Hartnett, Permanent Secretary, made in the Financial Times last August, when he suggested that
“HMRC is packed full of very intelligent people but we are sometimes too black and white about the law”?
Does the Minister believe that it is possible for tax officials to be “too black and white” about the antisocial behaviour of tax evaders? I can assure him that my constituents, and no doubt those of every hon. Member, do not take that view.
A well resourced and properly motivated HMRC is crucial to the important work of Government. I ask the Minister to provide more detail on the implications of HMRC’s funding settlement, and to consider the assumptions underpinning it.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
First, I wish all a wonderful Christmas.
As my contribution has been transferred from the education category to the Treasury category, I will take full advantage of the Treasury’s love of statistics and utilise them well in my speech. As my requests are generally related to the Department for Education, with a sparkling of festive spirit it will be nice and easy to secure agreement on all my requests.
I strongly believe that we have a duty to ensure that young people are equipped to make informed financial decisions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who made an excellent speech on the subject. I have been working with the Personal Financial Education Group, the Consumer Financial Education Body, and Martin Lewis of www.moneysavingexpert.com to set up an all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people.
The purpose of the APPG will be to provide a medium through which MPs, peers and organisations with an interest in financial education can discuss the current provision on financial education in schools; ensure that young people are equipped to make informed financial decisions; help make resources and qualifications available to young people in education; support schools in the delivery of financial capability; and encourage the introduction of a requirement on schools to provide financial education.
Recent studies have shown that 94% of people think that financial education for young people is important in the current environment. Society is changing, making financial education ever more important. This year for the first time we saw that debit card use overtook the use of money. Long gone are the days when people were paid weekly in cash and were able to budget to the point where they ran out of money. We now have more direct debits, more standing orders and more contracts. Having been a councillor for 10 years before becoming an MP, I saw among the residents whom I represented that many of those unfortunate enough to lose their job would quickly be overwhelmed by the outgoings from their bank account, even when they thought that they were not spending any money.
We receive increasingly complicated marketing messages. One point that was highlighted to me was the worrying number of people who think the higher the APR, the better. Young people will never be able to get 100%-plus mortgages or to repair past financial mistakes through rising house prices and start again. In these challenging economic times, 69% of parents are concerned that their children will get into debt in the future. Less than a quarter of parents feel very confident about educating their children in how to manage money.
This was brought home to me last Friday when I and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), with whom I share an office, held a training day with Citizens Advice, R3 and Nationwide building society to train us as MPs and our staff in how to deal with people who are in financial difficulty. Sixty per cent. of Citizens Advice’s work relates to debt and benefits, with the average client owing £16,970, which would take an average of 93 years to pay off at a rate that they can afford. I am sure all MPs share my concerns about the impact of debt. Interestingly, 91% of those who admitted to financial mistakes believe that financial education could have helped them avoid making those mistakes. I am sure a few MPs were included in that survey.
I believe schools have an essential role to play, and that is widely supported. Some 91% of teachers and parents agree that it is important that children learn to budget from a young age.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the cracking work he is doing in establishing the APPG. Does he agree that what we need to do better in schools is not only encourage young people to take qualifications, but mainstream financial education into the curriculum? One idea from a head teacher at Goole was that we should include it on the curriculum as part of functional maths.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He has already put his name on the APPG list, and he will have a very important role to play in it. I hope many other MPs will put their names down too. Through working with teachers and teacher organisations, we will find the best way to engage with young children. Young people will support that too, as 97% of 11 to 17-year-olds think it is important to learn about money in school. School provision for personal financial education is still patchy, however, and 72% of parents think not enough has been done in the past to educate children about financial matters.
While there are many examples of excellent work, often led by the PFEG or banks and building societies, far too many schools have no, or extremely limited, provision. Through the APPG, we want to drive up standards and participation. Ideally, all children should have access to standard, consistent and engaging provision, but in the meantime we must do all we can to maximise participation.
My Christmas wish is for Members to join the APPG. I am sure all Members have their pens poised, so I will inform them that the group’s official launch will be on 31 January between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm in the Jubilee Room, with Martin Lewis from MoneySavingExpert. I am aware that piles of Christmas cards will currently be covering hon. Members’ desks, but among them is an invitation—it will already have landed—so I ask them to keep an eye out for it.
As part of the group’s work, we will be looking to promote a balanced response. There are many different challenges ahead. Everybody is broadly supportive, but we must progress in a way that everybody can get behind and support. We have therefore been working with over 30 organisations, including banks and building societies, financial institutions, charitable organisations, schools and teaching organisations and, as I have said, Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert with, crucially, his 6.4 million subscribers, who will be encouraged to support this scheme.
At Christmas families face the greatest temptation to make the wrong financial decisions, so now would be a great time for us to make a difference. We should imagine what a difference it would make to our casework if people were able to make better and more-informed decisions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call the next speaker, may I wish the House—Members, staff and visitors—all the best for Christmas, and may we all have a good new year?
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I echo those wishes of good will and merriment to the House.
Before I start talking about choice and competition in the banking sector, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Building Societies Association and the pressure group Compass for giving me assistance in preparing for this debate, and to the fantastic staff of the Treasury Committee, who have provided excellent briefings to me and other Members throughout our ongoing inquiry into choice and competition in the sector.
The financial crisis had a major impact on the shape of the banking sector. There has been widespread consolidation, and concerns have been raised that competition in the sector is not working—with, for example, investigations by the Office of Fair Trading into overdraft charges—and that there is now an ever greater lack of choice and diversity in financial services. That is borne out by the latest OFT figures on market concentration. In the personal current account market, the five largest providers in the country have a 73% market share. In the mortgage market, they make up over 75% of gross lending. They have cornered over 90% of the credit card market as well. By way of comparison, in Spain, the US and Germany, the five largest providers have less than 50% of the personal current account market. In all but a couple of cases, the largest providers are banks. There has been just one new start-up retail bank, Metro Bank, since 2008. These figures demonstrate that there is a lack of choice and diversity in the sector, which, of course, also reduces competition.
I believe we can increase choice and competition by growing and expanding the mutual sector. I hope the Government agree with me on that, particularly as a commitment was given in the coalition agreement to
“bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity in financial services…and create a more competitive banking industry”,
in part by promoting mutuals.
But why mutuals, and what can they offer that standard banks cannot? First, mutuals are democratic. Banks are accountable to shareholders who demand a rising share price and a big dividend, whereas mutuals, collectively owned by their customers, have a collective of people who vote on the direction they wish the institution to take.
Gregg McClymont
I have been listening closely to my hon. Friend’s comments. Given the Government’s commitment to what they call the big society, does my hon. Friend agree that mutuals seem to be a perfect example of collective self-organisation of the type the Government talk about?
Mr Umunna
I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall expand on that matter a little later. An example of the participation of members of mutuals is displayed when one attends a building society annual general meeting. The participation rates in such AGMs have increased sharply over the years, and some have member panels, which play an enhanced role in the management of the organisation. I am in favour of markets, but properly regulated ones. That means that we need to redemocratise the market so that it serves people, rather than having things the other way round, which is an avenue we have gone down too much over the past couple of decades. Giving life to mutuals is a good way of redemocratising the financial services sector.
Secondly, mutuals add biodiversity to the financial services sector; a thriving mutuals sector adds to the diversity of the financial system. The more diversified the financial system in terms of size, ownership and structure of businesses, the better able it is to withstand the strains produced by normal business cycles and we can also avoid the herd instinct commonly displayed in the market over recent times.
Thirdly, mutuals have a lesser appetite for indulging in risky financial activities and so, on the whole, they weathered the storm well during the global financial crisis. For example, building society mortgage arrears are less than two thirds of those of the market as a whole. Building societies are also, thankfully, legally barred from taking positions in derivatives, foreign currency and commodity markets, which is where other financial organisations have found themselves in deep trouble. Where mutuals have run into difficulty, as the Dunfermline building society did in March 2009, it has been because they have moved away from the traditional mutual business model. So a growth in mutuals will not only reduce exposure to risky financial activities, but bring systemic advantages. It will foster a culture that moves away from the risky, reckless behaviours that we have seen precipitate the crisis, and so we can reduce the chances of that reoccurring.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on an important issue. Does his argument go on to say that the large banks should be broken up into smaller ones, as in the example from the United States?
Mr Umunna
I do not wish to pre-empt the inquiry being carried out by the Treasury Committee. I have some sympathy for those views, but I would like to continue to hear the evidence that my Committee is taking on this matter and read some of the submissions to the Independent Commission on Banking before coming to a firm view.
The fourth argument that I make in favour of mutuals is that they have strong local links and roots in local communities. Mutuals are often regionally based and therefore often have a better understanding of those they seek to serve because they understand and are rooted in those communities. Finally, mutuals will undoubtedly help to promote competition. As I have mentioned, building societies do not have to pay dividends to shareholders, so they can use their funds either to pay higher savings rates or provide lower mortgage rates. It is no surprise that they regularly top the “best buy” tables.
Justin Tomlinson
As the Nationwide building society’s head office is in Swindon, I fully support the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. To further strengthen them, may I say that the lack of competition will lead to higher costs and charges for customers?
Mr Umunna
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I do not wish to speak for too long, so I will just conclude by talking a bit about Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. As we all know, Northern Rock was nationalised on 18 February 2008, having been demutualised in 1997. After it demutualised, it had moved away from the traditional mutual business model and famously came unstuck in the summer of 2007. Likewise, Bradford & Bingley was taken into public ownership on 29 September 2008, having demutualised in December 2000. It, too, had run into trouble at the height of the crisis. For all the reasons that I have mentioned, we should remutualise Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley as soon as we can.
In answer to a written question on 3 November, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I am disappointed to see is not present, given that he was here for Treasury questions earlier, said:
“The Government have made it clear that they are not a permanent investor in UK banks and that their intention, over time, is to dispose of all the investments in an orderly way.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 825W.]
So I ask the Minister who is here, what is the Government’s current view on the issues that I have raised? Are the Government open to remutualisation as a way of meeting their promise in the coalition agreement to promote mutuals? If not, why not? How else do they propose to promote mutuals as promised? Has the Treasury carried out a feasibility study of the remutualisation of Northern Rock and of Bradford & Bingley? If it has not, I call on the Government to do so and publish the findings of that study, so that we might have a proper national debate on the issue.
If the Minister is unable to reply to my detailed questions today, will he undertake to ensure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury provides me with details of the same? I cannot emphasise to the House how important I think those issues are, because if we are serious about ensuring that our constituents do not have to pay the price for the global financial crisis that in turn contributed to and caused the recession, we as a collective absolutely need to get a grip on such matters.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
May I extend my good wishes to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all Members and staff?
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), because I, too, wish to raise a matter relating to high street banks. I shall discuss the proposals to withdraw the ability to write cheques, and in referring to that issue my remarks will in part be the reflections of a new Member—perhaps appropriate for this time of year—and draw on my early experience in a new role.
In August, I received a letter from a constituent, Miss Patricia Keats, who wrote to tell me that she was 87 years old, and since the closure of her local post office had found it difficult to get hold of cash. With her pension paid directly into her bank account, she found it convenient to ask a friend to take out cash for her and then to use her cheque book to pay that person. In addition, Miss Keats told me how useful her cheque book is for paying people who help her at home, such as her chiropodist; and how useful it is, when she watches a disaster unfold on TV, such as in Haiti or in Pakistan, for sending a donation. So, she wrote that she has real concerns about the banks’ proposals.
I am afraid that when I received Miss Keats’s letter I did not respond as thoroughly as I might have. I replied, simply pointing out that the proposal is fairly distant; that it will not come in until 2018; and that alternatives are being considered. I regret my response: I did not consider the issue sufficiently thoroughly, take account of her personal circumstances and wishes or do as much as I should have done to represent her interests. I am pleased to have the opportunity to put that matter right by going into the issue in more detail today.
This is a matter for the Payments Council, the organisation that directs the strategy for UK payments. The industry set it up in 2007 to ensure that payment systems and services meet the needs of payment service providers, users and the wider economy. Last year, the council’s board decided to set a target date of 2018 for closing central cheque clearing.
Some 4 million cheques are still written every day, so there is still a large number although it fell by 12% between 2000 and 2008, leading retailers such as Tesco and Marks and Spencer to refuse to accept them in their stores. Many people will know from their everyday experience that cheque usage is falling as people make payments by other methods, such as direct debits and internet banking.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but somebody in the older age group has drawn the issue to my attention, and I shall go on to mention how it affects not just those people but others.
It is true, none the less, that those most resisting change are older residents, such as Miss Keats, who often do not have internet access or are uncomfortable with the open-ended commitment of a direct debit, which involves a supplier, frequently a large, faceless corporation, being able to put its hand into their bank account.
I am myself of a generation that grew up with a cheque book, and I do not wish to see them go, despite having seen cheques used inappropriately; I am thinking about the idiot in the student union bar who, rather than taking out some cash, insists on paying for half a pint of bitter with a cheque, to the irritation of other customers and bar staff alike. It is clear that people generally do not want cheques to go. For settling an account with a provider of goods or services, sending a cheque is a simple and easy method of payment—not least because the cheque book stub is a convenient reminder of which bills have been paid.
Charities in particular do not want cheques to go; they fear that that would mean a decline in their incomes because many of their donors are nervous about other methods. Small businesses do not want them to go either, because it is easy to reconcile accounts when payments are made by cheque, often with invoice numbers written on the back.
Justin Tomlinson
I fully support that point about small businesses. As one who has spent many years reconciling accounts, I think that too often internet bank accounts do not show the full details, while it is always crystal clear who a cheque has come from.
Mark Pawsey
Absolutely. I spent 25 years running a small business and I know that the information on the back of cheques is of great value.
I am pleased that the Government recognise the seriousness of the issue. I appreciate the recent ministerial letter that recognised people’s concerns. It acknowledged that no decision on closure will be taken before 2016 and that that would depend on suitable replacement methods having been established. I am also pleased that the Government welcome the Payments Council’s commitment to reassure cheque users that their interests will not be ignored. But it is not enough simply to say that 2018 is a long way off, and it is not helpful to tell people that a facility will be withdrawn in the future without telling them what the alternatives might be. Individuals, businesses and charities want certainty about what might be happening.
I hope that this afternoon I have put right a wrong in my response to Miss Keats and that I have done justice to the points that she raised by asking the Minister to go a little further than he has until now and respond to the final plea that Miss Keats made in her letter that he
“do what he can do to support the very many people who want and need to keep cheques.”
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to respond to the Members who have contributed to this debate. I stand as the Treasury Minister who sits next to the Chancellor at all the meetings at No. 11, even if I am generally not allowed to speak in the House.
My hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) raised the issue of improving financial literacy and education for the young. Over the past decade, people’s financial habits have changed considerably. High personal debt coupled with low savings are something that we need to address, especially when they are looked at in the context of the financial crisis and the ageing population. There is no point in giving consumers detailed information about annual percentage rates and other financial data in connection with products if they do not understand what an APR is. When one sees the rates of interest charged by credit and store cards or doorstep lenders, that brings home the need for better financial education.
As a Government, we want people to take greater personal responsibility for their finances. As my hon. Friends said, giving people access to financial advice and education is an important part of that. That is why we have tasked the Consumer Financial Education Body, or CFEB, to deliver a free financial advice service by spring next year. That will improve financial literacy and help consumers to take charge of their own finances. It may even save a few marriages along the way.
A vital component of the service will be the annual financial health check, to provide people with a holistic overview of their finances. In tandem, the CFEB supports financial education through the “Learning Money Matters” programme, which offers free advice and resources to schools that want to teach personal finance education. I remind the House that finance education is currently part of the personal, social, health and economic education syllabus for key stages 1 to 4. However, I was concerned to hear that the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton did not receive that tuition as part of the syllabus. As a parent, perhaps she could get in touch with her parent governor or head teacher to ensure that it is covered in future. I was pleased to hear how the banks are interacting with local schools to provide that type of tuition.
I, too, have received an invitation to the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people. I certainly look forward to attending on 31 January, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy), who are the co-chairmen of the group. As a fan of Martin Lewis, who appears regularly on GMTV, I know he reaches 6.4 million people through his website and his appearances—dare I suggest that that is fewer people than are watching this debate?
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) raised the issue of the HMRC settlement. As an employer, I know Cumbernauld well because the name appears on the prepaid envelopes when I send off my tax to that particular office. The office employs 1,500 staff and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that it has a key role in debt management and collection, and that there are no plans substantially to reduce numbers in that office.
As with all Departments, HMRC will deliver on its efficiency savings programme by concentrating on the core elements of the service it provides. In the case of HMRC, that means ensuring that resources are more efficiently focused on collecting revenue and providing a better service to the British taxpayer. As part of its settlement, HMRC will therefore improve the pay-as-you-earn system, so that there is greater use of real-time information, and extend its online resources to reduce the demands placed on contact centres.
HMRC will reinvest the £900 million in savings to tackle avoidance, evasion and criminal activity. Those savings will be recycled into activities working against tax avoidance, evasion and criminal attack to collect additional revenue of £7 billion per annum by 2014-15. That will deliver a more robust criminal deterrent against tax evasion and will increase the number of criminal prosecutions fivefold. There will also be a crackdown on offshore evasion, with the creation of a new dedicated team of investigators to catch those hiding offshore money. We wish to clear the backlog of PAYE cases by 2012 and stabilise the service in order to recover and improve customer service. Central to that will be undertaking the next stage of consultation on improving PAYE through the use of real-time information to bring improvements to employers and taxpayers. Of course, in the past, that has resulted in underpayments and overpayments, some of which had to be written off and some of which had to be collected at great expense.
Mr Goodwill
I think I will just continue. I have a very detailed brief that I am sure my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor will put into a detailed response. Given the time, I cannot go into the issues in detail, but there are a number of tables that I am sure will reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Suffice it to say, the work force and change plans are still being developed. Until those plans are completed, HMRC cannot say what the position will be on redundancies or exits.
Gregg McClymont
I thank the Minister for his response. From what he said, can I take it that the Department will write to me with the detailed figures? Is that the position?
Mr Goodwill
Yes, I am sure that that is the case. The first choice is to redeploy, but where that is not possible because of location or skills, exits will be used as a last resort. HMRC will recruit people if it cannot otherwise fill roles with people who have the right skills.
On the point about child benefit changes within a reducing settlement, the changes will be managed from within the settlement. Withdrawing child benefit from households with a higher rate taxpayer can be done within existing PAYE and self-assessment systems. HMRC will therefore not need to contact all 7.8 million households in receipt of child benefit. From a customer’s perspective, that delivery option does not place a burden on all child benefit claimants; it limits the impact to those households containing higher-rate taxpayers.
On the issue of whether the law is too black and white, I stress that tax evasion cannot be tolerated wherever it occurs. I was pleased that the Finance (No.3) Act 2010 closed a number of the loopholes that meant that people were not paying the tax that they should. To be fair, those loopholes were identified by the previous Government.
Much of the debate was focused on the banking system and I am sure that we all have had horror stories brought to our attention by our constituents. One of my constituents was in the Proudfoot supermarket making a purchase of about £5 and the checkout girl accidentally clocked up £50. That was corrected less than five minutes later, but it incurred an unauthorised overdraft fee and the bank refused to back down when contacted by me as the Member of Parliament. Fortunately, when I got the Yorkshire Post on to the issue it finally relented; such is the power of the press.
In response to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the Government are clear that there should be more competition in the banking sector. The Independent Commission on Banking has been asked to consider reforms to the UK banking sector, including how to encourage greater competition. Following the commission’s report next year, the Government will bring forward specific proposals to foster diversity and increase competition, and I am sure that that will include a role for the mutual sector. I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Financial Secretary earlier, but I am sure that he will write to the hon. Gentleman following this debate.
On cheques, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) raised the potential—
Mr Umunna
I raised a number of detailed questions with the Minister, responses to which have not been forthcoming. I heard with interest the views of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the response that the Minister is giving, bearing in mind that he has been called to do this at such short notice. However, I would be grateful if he explained why the Financial Secretary himself is not here, as he was here only a few hours ago. Will he undertake to ensure that I get detailed responses to the issues that I have raised?
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. First, this has not happened at short notice—it has always been the plan for me to answer this debate. He had an opportunity earlier at Treasury questions to raise specific issues when the majority of the team were there. I am aware that I have only less than a minute left, which is why I want to move on to the next point. I am sure that he will get a detailed response, particularly about the way in which the banks, which are now largely in the public sector, are sold on or whatever. The Government will no doubt be looking at the best value for the taxpayer as well as the best service to business and individuals. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will write to him, and we will be making further announcements in the House at an appropriate time.
On the withdrawal of cheque facilities, it is true that the number of cheques issued has declined dramatically. More than 11 million cheques were written in 1990, and that figure declined to 3.5 million in 2009. A provisional date of 31 October 2018 has been set for the withdrawal of cheque facilities, with a final decision to be made by 2016. I, too, have received a letter from a constituent, which arrived this morning. It is from Mrs Hunter of Whitby, who tells me that she is over 90 years old and does not possess a computer or a laptop, or even a mobile phone or any credit or debit card, and so will find it very difficult to send money through the post to her family at Christmas or to make payments to charities. Her local post office, which was within walking distance, was closed when the previous Government were in office, so a journey to the Yorkshire building society or the Co-op would require a taxi journey or a bus ride. She is very concerned that elderly people without recourse to cheques will not find it easy to make payments. Similarly, many small businesses find the cheque system very convenient.
The Government believe that suitable alternatives must be in place for all users of cheques before the system can be phased out, and they welcome the new commitments made by the banking industry on 7 December. In those commitments, the industry recognises the importance of having in place proper alternatives to cheques for those who rely on them most, such as the elderly, the housebound, charities and small businesses. The industry has said that a potential alternative to cheque facilities may include a paper system. Of course, if cheques were to be phased out, it would also be the end of the famous phrase, “The cheque is in the post.”
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have a very peaceful and comfortable Christmas, and let us look forward to a productive new year for the coalition Government.
Communities and Local Government
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the way in which one area in my constituency, Devonshire Park, is being treated. It feels that it is under attack from the planning system. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has responsibility for such matters, is present. I will end by making a constructive suggestion on how Devonshire Park could be a pilot under the Government’s Localism Bill.
Devonshire Park is a small part of Birkenhead, which began to be built during Disraeli’s great reforming Government. It was that Government who, in the late 1870s, forged a new tradition for the Tory party. That was the beginning of one-nation Toryism. While Disraeli was doing that great work here in Westminster, the burghers of Birkenhead were building up their town. This small part of Birkenhead is rather finely built: the houses are set back from the road, are mainly detached or semi-detached and are large, decent family houses with gardens. The walls, which are such a feature of Birkenhead, are particularly interesting in this area, because much of the stone came from the nearby Storeton quarry.
It would still be a most peaceful community, but times change. A quarter of its 477 houses have been made into flats. That is double the proportion in the nation as a whole. That is not what worries my constituents the most, nor does it worry them that the houses make very good residential care homes for frail elderly people from Birkenhead and beyond. What worries my constituents is the number of homes that have been converted for institutional care use, such as rehab centres and support units for single mothers. My constituents feel that having 16 such institutions in such a small area begins to change the character of the local neighbourhood. They are not nimbys and are not saying that they do not want any such institutions in their back garden; they are just saying that they have rather a large number. They oppose developers who try to buy up property to convert yet more family homes into centres for use by institutions.
The chairman of the residents association, Robbie Bell, says that Devonshire Park is a
“community that other areas would aspire to.”
He, like me, wants the community to grow in spirit, so that it protects what it has and builds on it. The area is under attack, not from the normal forces of yobbish and criminal behaviour, but from developers. The area is targeted by developers who wish to buy up the homes and to create more institutional care homes, adding to the 16 that already operate in the area. I have already made the distinction between institutions such as drug rehab centres and support centres for single mums, and the residential care homes that do not trouble the local community.
I hope that the Government’s Localism Bill will come to the community’s rescue. From reading the Bill, I am not sure whether the Government have yet settled on their views in all areas. I therefore want to be positive and suggest that Devonshire Park would like to be No. 1 on the Government’s list to try out the neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders that are mentioned in the Bill. Across the country, there are examples of conservation areas, where the physical environment is protected. The Devonshire Park residents association wants the Government to consider whether we can use the neighbourhood development plans and orders in the Bill to move from protecting the physical environment to protecting the character of an area.
We all know that as we can kill people in different ways, so can we kill areas in different ways. There can be planning blight or local authority neglect, or we might have earthquake or fire. Alternatively, an area can come under attack from developers who, like the thief in the night, are constantly looking out for the opportunity to change the very nature of an incredibly strong community, which makes it feel under attack. My view is that the Localism Bill might ride to the rescue of such communities. I hope that the Minister might give my constituents hope that they can be the first through his door, suggesting how they would like the idea of a local development plan to become reality and protect them and people in similar areas of the country.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), recently made a written statement about the award of jubilee city status in 2012. That continues a practice of creating new cities that was seen at the times of the Queen’s silver and golden jubilees and the millennium celebrations.
The granting of city status to existing large towns or urban districts reflects changes in Britain’s demography. After all, the original definition of a city was a large town with a cathedral. Many cathedrals were built in the middle ages, and thus the status of many cities in no small part reflects their historic importance. It is therefore much to be commended that the diamond jubilee provides an opportunity to create new cities and to recognise the changing identity of where people live.
However, city status is partly a celebratory designation and does not change the status of a place for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 or any subsequent amendments to it. I hope that the diamond jubilee will also provide an opportunity to recognise the historic identity of many of England’s larger towns that do not aspire to be described as cities but would welcome back the right to be described as boroughs.
The English and Welsh boroughs played an important part in our nation’s history. Borough status was granted by the Crown by royal charter because a town had achieved significant status or for particular achievements, and boroughs were entitled to return Members of Parliament. Most could return two Members, although under their charters a handful could return only one. Banbury became an episcopal borough way back in the time of the Plantagenets, and it was granted a royal charter for borough status by Queen Mary Tudor in 1554. Under that charter it was entitled to return a single Member to Parliament, and I am thus the 46th Member of Parliament for Banbury. A subsequent charter was granted by James I in 1608.
If colleagues take a walk through Central Lobby to St Stephen’s entrance and look up at the window, they will see there in stained glass the coats of arms of the boroughs at the time when the House was rebuilt after the fire. There, immediately opposite the statue of Somers, are the coats of arms of Banbury, because at that time it was recognised that the English boroughs were part of the fabric of our nation.
The reorganisation of local government in the early 1970s broadly divided England into two tiers, counties and districts. It was decided that only districts could have the opportunity of describing themselves as boroughs. Effectively, the only boroughs remaining are those communities that, at the time of the 1972 Act, were large enough as boroughs to become stand-alone district authorities. Smaller boroughs such as Banbury were wiped off the map and given no more than charter trustee status. In other words, the district councillors who represented the former borough of Banbury were designated as trustees of the borough’s charter. It was only comparatively recently that former boroughs such as Banbury were able to acquire town council status, which is the equivalent of being a parish council.
I can report to Ministers that, since Banbury acquired town council status, there has been a considerable regeneration of civic and community activity. Banbury is an English market town that is proud of its history and traditions and the history of our nation, as shown by the fact that it is, so far as I know, the only town in Oxfordshire that, every year since 1940, has held a battle of Britain service and parade to give thanks for England’s deliverance at the battle of Britain.
Banbury does not aspire to be a city, but it is the largest town in Oxfordshire after the city of Oxford, and it would like to be recognised for what it always has been—an English borough. Banbury does not aspire in any way to compete with Cherwell district. Indeed, as local residents, we are proud to be part of Cherwell and of Cherwell’s achievements. It is a distinctive area of England.
More than 40 years have passed since the 1972 Act, and there is no risk of anyone becoming confused between a Banbury borough council and Cherwell district council, just as no one is confused between Banbury town council and Cherwell district council. Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government state that, under the 1972 Act, only district councils can become boroughs. I understand that point, but I want to tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I have a solution.
As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office made clear, the creation of new jubilee cities will be done not under an Act of Parliament, but by exercise of the royal prerogative. On exactly the same principle, I suggest that the Queen could exercise the royal prerogative to create jubilee boroughs. Any town in England with former borough status could apply to become a jubilee borough. That would not require an amendment to the 1972 Act. There would be no confusion between jubilee borough celebratory designation and boroughs that are district councils. It would enable recognition of an important part of English civil life and cost not a single penny—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your family a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I extend that to the Under-Secretary and all hon. Members.
I want to speak about the housing market renewal programme or, more accurately, the Government’s scrapping of it. On 17 May, the Chancellor announced that the Government would implement £6.2 billion of in-year cuts. Further details were announced seven days later, outlining £1.65 billion in local government funding cuts. The harsh reality for the housing market renewal programme became clear a month later in a written ministerial statement, which revealed that it was targeted for cuts. The comprehensive spending review later revealed that there would be no bespoke funding for housing market renewal beyond March 2011. That is in stark contrast with the previous funding settlement of £1.2 billion between 2002 and 2008, and a further £1 billion from 2008 to 2011.
The programme was introduced in 2002, and I am particularly proud of it, not least because it was the flagship regeneration scheme of my predecessor, Lord Prescott. The intention was to renew failing housing markets, improve neighbourhoods and encourage people to live and work in those areas. Gateway’s success in my area speaks for itself. More than 1,500 homes were refurbished, thereby improving lives and transforming disadvantaged neighbourhoods; 615 new energy-efficient homes were created; more than 800 families were moved to decent homes; more than 300 local jobs, as well as dozens of apprenticeships, were created, and more than 600 of the worst properties in the east and west of the city have been demolished.
The effects of the Tory-led Government policy for residents in my constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) have been disastrous. People have been left to live in houses surrounded by derelict properties, with damp seeping under the carpet, and decaying walls and floors. They have been left surrounded by abandoned properties, which are subject to vandalism. The elderly have found themselves stranded in boarded-up estates. Children are playing in dangerous and filthy conditions, while their parents have had their hopes and dreams stolen. Joanne Turton, a constituent, described her situation as living in limbo and as absolute cruelty. She asked me what she and her family have done to deserve that treatment.
My constituents do not care about party politics or political point scoring, or about where the fault lies—they are desperate for answers—but I do not share their restraint. As far as I am concerned, the blame lies firmly with the Tory and Lib Dem Government, which is why it is their responsibility to clean up the mess.
At the onset of this situation, I wrote to the Department for Communities and Local Government to express my concerns, and to invite the Housing and Local Government Minister to visit my constituents to see the damage for himself. Not surprisingly, the response to my invitation was that his diary is full and that he could not come to see the mess. I received a sort of response, but that underlined the absolute mess of the policy. There is a complete lack of a plan B, and there are no contingency, exit or transitional plans.
The suggestion was that the £1.4 billion regional growth fund would cover the loss of funding resulting from the abolition of regional development agencies, and cuts in funding to transport, housing and other Departments. However, £1.4 billion is simply not enough, and it clearly does not help my constituents, who deserve better than insubstantial answers and pretend solutions. Those who were selling properties have experienced a substantial decrease in the value of their homes, and those who were renting have been left with substandard housing. It is an utter disgrace to leave people in those conditions—to steal their dreams, hopes and dignity. One constituent described it thus: “It’s like we’d packed our suitcases to emigrate to our dream destination. We are on the flight and all’s well. We’re at 36,000 feet when the Government changes hands, and the new Prime Minister orders the captain to turn off the engines as we are about to prepare for landing, leaving absolute carnage.”
I contacted my local authority yesterday, when it confirmed that it needs £9 million to sort this mess out. Will the Minister tell me and my constituents what he will do to ensure that they enjoy a worry-free Christmas and a happy new year?
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the Localism Bill, which is a fantastic early Christmas present for Northamptonshire. My constituents now hold out the hope once again that they can control the over-development and lack of infrastructure in their community, which was a feature of the past decade or more. Northamptonshire was part of a regional spatial strategy. It was decided that it should be the fastest-growing county in the country, but we have been poorly served by a lack of infrastructure in schools, hospitals, roads and access roads to deal with the amount of housing that has been forced upon us.
West Northamptonshire development corporation took control not only of the planning strategy for housing, but of planning itself—away from Northampton borough and Towcester—and local residents have had to sit on their hands while feeling a distinct lack of local democracy in the planning that has been forced on them. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend on deciding to get rid of the RSS and to scrap the WNDC as soon as possible. In the year ending 2010, the WNDC spent almost £20 million of taxpayers’ money, but local people have very little to show for it.
As well as that top-down control, we also had the west Northamptonshire joint planning committee forced on us by a statutory instrument in 2008. Although technically owned by the local councils, the committee has been required to come up with a plan to build up to 20,000 new houses in my constituency, many of them on greenfield sites, including beautiful villages that were listed in the Domesday book, such as Collingtree, Denton, Brafield-on-the-Green and Hackleton. I am grateful to Front-Bench colleagues who visited my constituency before and after the election to try to set at ease the minds of people who felt that their communities would be ruined. I hope that the committee will not progress any such plans. Indeed, it received 6,000 complaints from local residents about its proposed strategy.
The problem is how we get from where we are today to where we want to be after the Localism Bill is on the statute book. Our problem is that some of the councils want to get rid of the west Northamptonshire joint planning committee now and others are afraid of creating a planning vacuum if we walk away from the committee but have nothing to put in its place. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified how we can move from the present situation, with the west Northamptonshire joint planning committee still in place, to where we want to be—with a local development framework and with local communities deciding how much housing they should have and where it should be. The gap could be as much as eight to 12 months, and councillors are very concerned about what might happen with developer options on sites in the event that we no longer have a top-down plan in the absence of the bottom-up framework. That is a key question for my hon. Friend the Minister.
In Northamptonshire, we are beset by wind farm applications. We are not a very windy county, but my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and I have some 15 wind farm applications between us, many in beautiful areas where communities are desperately unhappy about them. Is there any scope in the Localism Bill to include greater opportunity for local communities to have their say and influence both the location and number of wind turbines? We need to introduce renewable energy in Britain, and it will form a key part of our energy security in the years to come, but we need far greater accountability so that local communities can have their say and be a part of the planning process from the bottom up, rather than being told what to do by top-down government.
To conclude, I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all those hon. Members in their places a very happy Christmas and new year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
It has been a wide-ranging debate, which perhaps reflects the remit of the Department. I shall try to address the issues raised by hon. Members in order.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a characteristically graceful speech that argued a serious point. I have a lot of sympathy with the issue that he raised, and I was of course especially taken by the historical context and his reference to Disraeli. It may be of some comfort to him to learn that a portrait of Disraeli sits behind my desk—
Robert Neill
He is indeed keeping an eye on me. I have long suspected that the right hon. Gentleman and I would both be comfortable within the tradition that Disraeli founded, but I shall not ask him to change his position too much in the Chamber just before Christmas.
The right hon. Gentleman made a serious point about repeat planning applications and gave some serious examples of what has happened in his constituency. I have had similar examples in my constituency and I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members could say the same. Many of us have heard horror stories of communities—and, indeed, local authorities themselves—sometimes feeling worn down by repeated applications from the same developer on the same site. The right hon. Gentleman has seen that with particular types of development in his constituency, and I have certainly had to do battle on behalf of my constituents over repeat applications to develop back gardens, for example. That is a real threat in many suburban areas. It is important, therefore, that we take steps to prevent the system from being abused.
People of course have a right to make planning applications, but there are measures, to which I will come now, with which we can seek to control them. At the moment, a local planning authority can decline to determine a planning application, if it has refused permission for two “substantially similar” applications on the same site, or if one such application has been refused by the Secretary of State on appeal within the past two years. It is worth reminding local authorities, and members of planning committees and their officers, that they are entitled to use that safeguard, and not to be browbeaten, perhaps, in some circumstances. The relevant provisions are in sections 70A and 70B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
The decision on whether an application is the same or substantially the same, and therefore on whether a determination can be refused, is for the local planning authority. Obviously, it has to take care, because it is justiciable, but provided that it acts within the context of public law in decision making, that safeguard is open to them. It is a discretionary power, however, and does not preclude an amended application from being made—once a developer has listened and addressed objections, as I hope would be the case—that does not fall foul of the provisions,.
I can confirm to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that the Government intend to apply similar principles to neighbourhood plans drawn up under the Localism Bill. The Bill would allow local authorities to decline to consider a repeat proposal for a neighbourhood development order—the mechanism for, in effect, giving consent under the Bill. I hope that his point has been taken on board in that regard.
Robert Neill
The Localism Bill would create the concept of a neighbourhood plan, which could be incorporated in Birkenhead borough council’s statutory development document—its planning framework, as it is generally called. It would permit residents of Devonshire Park to apply to the local council to be recognised, as I am sure they would be in these circumstances, as a neighbourhood forum for the purposes of producing a neighbourhood plan. That would enable them to set out their vision for the area, which, subject to a referendum and getting support from their fellow residents, the local planning authority would incorporate into its plans, unless there were strategic reasons to the contrary.
That a significant safeguard would enable residents to put in place protection against particular types of development, if they thought they were not sustainable. It would, of course, have to be consistent with national policy that we will be setting out in the national planning policy framework, and with our support for sustainable development. However, it is exactly the sort of vehicle that the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents are seeking. I would be happy to talk to him as the Bill progresses to ensure that he and his constituents are in a position to take advantage of the provisions.
I also hope, of course, owing to the requirement in the Bill for pre-application discussions on any scheme of any significance, that developers themselves will recognise and take heed of the concerns and aspirations of local communities, and adjust their developments accordingly. We are trying to move to a much more collaborative and front-loaded approach to planning, rather than repeat applications and the threat of a decision by appeal at the end. I am happy to keep the right hon. Gentleman informed on progress on those matters.
Let me now go back further than the Disraeli period—to the Plantagenets, as I understand it—and address the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I am sure that he was not there at the time, but he has a degree of erudition that clearly indicates that he has gone that far back in researching borough status for Banbury. Those of us who watch “Lark Rise to Candleford” will be well aware of the status of Banbury within Oxfordshire, and not just as the home of Banbury cakes, but as a major town. I understand the sense of where my hon. Friend is coming from, because we as a Government recognise civic pride as a valuable part of the big society. That said, these things are not quite as easy as one might wish. My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer, and he is quite right about the constraints on achieving the ambition that he set out.
At the current time it is not possible for any authority, other than a district council, to become a borough. There may be no confusion among the residents of his area about Cherwell district council and a borough of Banbury, but I would not like to guarantee that that would apply everywhere else. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for Birkenhead smiling. One can just imagine the confusion about what was the historic borough of Birkenhead and the borough of Wirral, of which it is now a part. I can see the same thing happening in my constituency, with confusion about the former borough of Bromley and the current borough of Bromley, one of which is much larger than the other, which happens to lie within it. Things are not quite so simple, so we will have to be a careful. We will of course consider the position, but the route suggested is not to create a new type of borough, which could confuse people even more. Rather, if Banbury wishes, it can apply for city status under the jubilee provisions.
Tony Baldry
We do not want to be a city; we want to be a jubilee borough. It is not the same as wanting designation under the Local Government Act 1972; it is something completely different. If, as with cities, Ministers are not willing to pursue that under the royal prerogative, we will have to petition the Privy Council and see where we get. The proposal will not cost anything. I just hope that Ministers will show a little more imagination.
Robert Neill
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but he will understand that it is difficult to pluck out one case. Banbury can call itself a town council—it has a mayor, and civic regalia and plate, and it can use its coat of arms. I hope that he will reflect on the matter, if that is not a proportionate solution.
Let me turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the pathfinders. It is fair to say that Hull city council will receive more than £23 million this year to take forward projects in east and west Hull. Of course there have had to be reductions, but I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman made the only speech that sounded a vaguely partisan note—but responsibility for that ultimately lies with those who created the difficulty and the deficit that we now have to deal with. There are other options open in housing market renewal areas, and local authorities can continue to apply to the regional growth fund. There is also the new homes bonus and the new affordable rent programme, including new empty home funding, so there are other options available. Indeed, I note that Hull is working on a local enterprise partnership, which I believe will also open up real opportunities. We want that taken forward, but that cannot be done under the previous, unsustainable financial position. I understand the difficulties, but Hull is being imaginative, and the local enterprise partnerships will offer it real opportunities.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), I say that the Localism Bill is coming forward very soon. Localism will enable neighbourhood plans to have regard to issues such as wind farm development. Our reforms will apply equally to wind farms that are considered under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which of course have to be consistent with national policy, as I have said. We are also taking steps on changing planning structures, and if my hon. Friend keeps in touch with me on those matters, I hope that we will be able to discuss how to translate the existing, top-down structures into something more democratic. The Localism Bill’s proposal to abolish the regional spatial strategies will give much greater scope to local authorities such as hers to develop in the right place, and in a way that is appropriate to the context of local communities.
Having dealt with that, may I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a very happy Christmas. If anyone is short of a present—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will be glad to know this—the Department for Communities and Local Government still has some 5,000 branded Office of the Deputy Prime Minister promotional biros available.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Thank you very much, Minister. I am sure that we all want to wish you and all other Members a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Perhaps we shall want to reflect on the question of the biros, however.
General matters
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I know that it is the festive season, but it is customary in the Chamber for Members to stand up to indicate that they wish to speak. I hope that any reluctance to do so is not due to any early celebrations. I call Valerie Vaz.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to start this debate, particularly on this day, which is seeing another first for Parliament.
In 1948, a tired world, exhausted after two world wars, did the right thing when it came together to proclaim the universal declaration of human rights. The concept was simple: it was to reaffirm the faith
“in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women”,
and to state:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
In 1998, the United Kingdom passed the Human Rights Act, which merely enshrined the European convention on human rights in British law. We were one of the first nations to sign the convention in 1950. The Foreign Secretary stated at the weekend that he wants to increase Britain’s influence in the world, but we cannot take our place on the world stage while making a commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act.
Members will also be aware of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation that applies to interpreting the convention. It provides for a range of discretion, under which the convention can be interpreted differently in different member states, to take into account cultural, historical and philosophical differences between Europe and the nation in question, so there is no need to be fearful of the Act.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that the dignity and worth of a person is important, and that equality is a goal worth pursuing, yet there are millions of men and women who struggle silently for equality at great personal cost. In Iran, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is still awaiting her fate. The signatories to the open letter in The Times to the president and supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and a letter from 119 Members of this House to the Iranian Government have called on them to free her. The charges against her have changed. Her lawyer has had to flee. Her son has been arrested, as have German nationals. The German Bundestag has now passed a resolution to engage with the Iranian Government to lift the death penalty. Ashtiani’s human rights, like her testimony, count for less than a man’s. The man who was her co-accused is free and does not face the daily torture that she does of not knowing whether she is to live or die. We call on the Iranian Government to start the new year by resolving to free her.
Men and women both suffer human rights violations, but the position is more difficult for women, because 70% of the worlds illiterate people are female, and 75% of the world’s refugees and internally displaced persons are female. Women also face barriers, which give them less access to legal institutions, for example. In Burma, the recent release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was internationally welcomed and celebrated, but with the failing economic situation there are high volumes of human trafficking, especially of women and girls. These are the 21st century slaves, and we should be outraged in the same way as William Wilberforce was in this House. The enslavement of girls and women into prostitution is demeaning, offensive and undertaken by coercion.
Women are routinely subjected to genital mutilation in countries such as Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan, and the effect is now being seen here. This is not a religious issue; it reflects deep-rooted inequalities between the sexes and extreme discrimination against women. Worst of all, it is carried out on the voiceless: babies and young girls. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 must be enforced, but other techniques should also be used to educate people and to explain to those countries that this is not an acceptable practice.
In 1990, the Nobel prize-winning economist Amartya Sen wrote of the 100 million missing women. He noted that women lived longer than men in most circumstances. Even poorer countries in Latin America and Africa have more females than males. In places where girls have a deeply unequal status, they disappear. China has 107 males for every 100 females; in India, the figure is 108, and in Pakistan, 111. Kerala, which has championed the education of women, has the same excess of females as the United States, however.
In 2001, the World Bank argued that promoting gender equality was crucial to combating global poverty. The Self Employed Women’s Association was founded in India in 1972, and, by supporting women who are starting businesses, has achieved staggering success in raising living standards. Other initiatives, such as the “Because I am a Girl” campaign—Members may be aware that it organised a display in the Committee Corridor—are attempting to break the cycle of gender discrimination and poverty through education and targeted support. Such projects and initiatives help women to achieve their rightful place in societies that put them at risk following conflicts that render them victims. The transformation of those women's lives also transforms destabilised societies.
The principles of the universal declaration of human rights can be implemented through the empowerment of women through education and the use of micro-finance to give them equality. I believe that the struggle for gender equality is the moral challenge of this century, and that the future of the world depends on it.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in what I am sure will be a wide-ranging and interesting debate.
I have a business background, and I am pleased to note that the Government have put support for business at the heart of their plan to rebalance our economy. They seem truly to value innovation and enterprise. The success of businesses of all sizes will be vital to our recovery. I have been fortunate enough to visit and meet representatives of many businesses in my constituency—that is one of the most interesting and informative parts of the role that I play—but all the company representatives whom I have met have highlighted particular challenges that they face in the current economic climate.
Places such as Basildon and Thurrock have the potential to lead our recovery. I believe that they will benefit from the change of Government and the new emphasis being placed on business, and will be able to play their role as the economic powerhouses that we need them to be. I am especially delighted that the Government have recognised the vital importance of our small and medium-sized enterprises. I think that Members throughout the House agree that they will have a major role to play in our recovery, but they face particular challenges. Let me give three examples.
The first challenge is access to finance, an issue that has been raised a number of times in the House and has been much discussed. We have lost many good businesses because of lack of support from the banks, either because the banks have become too risk-averse or because they have simply not liked the sector in which those companies operate. It is worth our reminding, certainly, the publicly owned banks that they need to do much more to support our businesses: I believe that they have a moral obligation to continue to support the companies that they have supported in the past. There is also a role for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I know of cases in which it has been too quick to pull the plug on companies, or too inflexible to recognise the cashflow problems that small companies may face. I hope that Ministers will think about whether more can be done to support them.
The second challenge is the burden of bureaucracy, red tape and regulation that falls on small businesses. I realise that it was designed to deal with the practices of unscrupulous employers, but I think we should recognise that the vast majority of SMEs value their employees greatly and treat them very well. Regulation must find a balance between dealing with unscrupulous employers and not overburdening responsible ones.
Many SMEs now have to employ external consultants to deal with ever-changing rules and regulations. They have to pay experts to help them to understand employment law and health and safety regulations. All that adds to the cost and burden of running their companies. While I recognise that employment law and health and safety regulations are vital to protect employees, there are sometimes unforeseen consequences. For example, if there were no statutory retirement age, it would be possible for an employee of many years’ standing to be dismissed on grounds of competency rather than being able to retire with dignity. Employers may not want to take this path but feel that they must in order to address their own commercial needs.
We need to make it easier for SMEs to employ people. The reality, or the perception of the reality, is that it is too difficult or too onerous to take on staff, so SMEs hold back longer than they might. I hope we will be able to find a way of easing that burden so that companies will take people on earlier and help reduce our rising or our high unemployment figures. We also need to do more to help people in the transition from unemployment to employment. In my time at work, there were occasions when we had to lend money to new starters because the cost of work was more than those people could afford as they moved from benefits to employment.
Finally, I want to encourage the Government to have a greater understanding of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government are doing their best, but I want them to recognise that small businesses in particular are not a homogenous mass. A small business is more like a collection of micro-businesses. A company of 10 people could comprise a salesman, a production manager, a fitter, a driver and a designer, all of whom have separate skills and separate roles. They operate within separate spheres and cannot easily pick up the slack when one of the team members is on a prolonged absence. I hope the Government will recognise that when framing future legislation.
In summary, I truly believe that the Government have the best interests of business at heart and have got off to a great start, but will they please remember that not all businesses are the same and that size really does matter? We need a different approach, depending on the scale of the business. I know that, with care, we can deliver an environment to support our businesses and firms of all sizes, and that SMEs will happily play their role in rebuilding and rebalancing our damaged economy. With our help, they will grow to enjoy the bright and prosperous new year that I know we all wish them.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I take this opportunity to talk about an important issue that affects the economic welfare of my constituency and the north-east of England.
The Government recently postponed a decision on the intercity express programme. A final decision is to be made in the new year. The intercity express programme will replace the rolling stock on the east coast main line and the great western line. The previous Government appointed Hitachi as the preferred bidder, and Hitachi selected Newton Aycliffe in my constituency as its preferred site at which to build a new fleet of trains if the contract goes ahead. That means the creation of British jobs, a much-needed boost to the private sector in the north-east of England and the arrival of a major manufacturer in the region.
The Government are also considering an alternative train system that would entail coupling diesel engines to electric trains, an option that would more than likely mean that the trains would be imported from abroad, offering none of the benefits to the UK economy and adding further delays as the whole project would have to go out to tender again.
If there was ever a reason why the existing rolling stock needs to be replaced, it is evident today. The east coast main line is suspended between King’s Cross and Peterborough, with trains breaking down here, there and everywhere. The trains rely on overhead electric cables, and when they are down the trains stop. The Hitachi trains are bimodal, which means that they can switch from diesel to electric and vice versa when the need arises. Southeastern operates such Hitachi high speed trains, which have an excellent record in the current bad weather. That is a ringing endorsement of the technology and work force.
Given the combination of the weather and poor rolling stock, the journey home to the north-east for me and many others will not be a very pleasant experience over the next 48 hours. But what is more important is the economic impact of Hitachi’s desire to move to the north-east of England. The move to Newton Aycliffe would create 800 direct jobs and more than 7,000 jobs in the supply chain, many of them in the region.
Hitachi’s investment would be the biggest investment in the north-east of England since Nissan back in the 1980s. It would also tick many other boxes for the Government. It would grow the private sector. There would be a £48 return on every £1 of public investment. There is no requirement for public sector investment until after the next election, well after the scope of the present CSR. More important is the additional income to the Exchequer from the creation of so many manufacturing jobs, the average wage being between about £25,000 and £27,000. The northern TUC has published a study by the Institute for the Study of Labour in Bonn, Germany, which revealed that such jobs at such rates of pay would generate about £13,000 per employee. In the case of the 800 jobs at Hitachi, that is £10.4 million a year in saved benefits and lost sums raised through direct and indirect taxes. If we consider the supply chain too, it has been estimated the figure would rise to over £100 million a year, a sum not to be sniffed at when we all want the deficit to be cut in a careful and structured way.
In Sedgefield, unemployment stands at 1,935. According to Government figures published last week, every unemployed person costs the Exchequer £7,800 in benefits and lost taxes. Therefore, unemployment in Sedgefield is costing the country about £15 million a year. That estimate is based on someone leaving jobseeker’s allowance and earning £12,200 a year. I have two issues with that. The average wage is higher than £12,200, so the cost to the Exchequer per person unemployed will be higher. Secondly, it shows what a great paucity of ambition the Government have for those who are out of work that they believe a person will leave JSA and earn just £12,200 a year. We need real jobs with real wages and a real future. Hitachi would offer the area that, and that is why this is so important to my constituency. Hitachi coming to Newton Aycliffe would help the town fulfil its ambition. If the intercity express programme does not go ahead or the programme is ordered in from abroad, thereby exploiting British jobs, the people of the north-east will feel as if the door is being slammed on the region and on their future.
Finally, I want to thank the thousands of constituents who signed the petition supporting the Hitachi bid and the Northern TUC for its help, along with the North East chamber of commerce, Unite the Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, The Northern Echo and well over 100 companies in the region who have leant their support to the Hitachi campaign. The intercity express programme must go ahead if we are to see private sector growth in the north-east of England. The economic case has been made—more jobs, greater tax income, and the biggest investment in the region for 30-odd years. Hitachi has shown great faith in the north-east. It is time for the Government to do the same by giving the go-ahead to the intercity express programme originally proposed by the last Government and by allowing Hitachi and the north-east to get on with the job.
On that note, I wish everybody a merry Christmas.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year?
As a chartered surveyor and an East Anglian representing a Suffolk constituency, the provision of infrastructure takes up a lot of my time. That has been the case not just over the past seven months, but over the past 27 years. Two things that I find myself saying with great regularity are, “We don’t do infrastructure well in the UK” and, in an East Anglian context, “We talk about infrastructure a lot because we don’t have any.” The nearest motorway to my constituency of Waveney is in Holland, and Lowestoft has been waiting 75 years for a third crossing over the water that divides the town.
Infrastructure and job creation go hand in hand. A good transport system is a prerequisite for sustained economic growth and, conversely, poor infrastructure and congestion hold back growth and the creation of jobs. Historically over the centuries, Britain has had a great record of inventing and building world-class infrastructure that underpinned economic growth, whether the creation of the canal network, the engineering work of Brunel, or the building of the railways and the London underground. More recently, our track record has been poor. There has been no long-term strategic framework, projects have the gestation period of an elephant, and to many it appears that Britain has ground to a halt, as we sit in traffic jams and wait for trains that never arrive—and, at present, planes that do not fly.
In the past, local highway authorities pursued an ongoing programme of continually improving the local road network such as through regularly building bypasses and relief roads around market towns. They stopped pursuing such an approach 20 years ago. The result, in East Anglia at least, is that there is a large backlog of work to be carried out on such schemes as the Beccles southern relief road in my constituency, the Brandon bypass in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), and the Long Stratton bypass in south Norfolk.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Brandon bypass was mentioned in my predecessor’s maiden speech in 1992 as an urgent priority for the link between Suffolk and Norfolk. Although some progress has been made since, no ground has been dug. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an awful long time to wait?
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend very much proves my point. There is a need for local highways authorities to be given greater autonomy to carry out local projects. The geography of East Anglia is such that, in many respects, the provision of good infrastructure is not easy. Ours is a sparsely populated area, with relatively small regional centres, such as Norwich, Ipswich and Colchester, interspersed with coastal and market towns, and myriad villages. Today, the case for providing good infrastructure in East Anglia is compelling. There is a need for good roads, as East Anglia has a greater reliance on private vehicles than any other UK region. The area is relatively inaccessible compared with similar regions around the world with which we are competing for inward investment. Despite those drawbacks and the relative inadequacy of infrastructure in East Anglia, its economy performs extremely well. In terms of gross domestic product, it is the third top performing region after London and the south-east, and is a positive contributor to the Exchequer. With proper investment, East Anglia could contribute a great deal more.
The time is right for Britain to resume its role as a world leader in the provision of infrastructure. I have read the Treasury’s national infrastructure plan, which was published in October, so I know that the Government’s policies appear to be pointing in the right direction, but they now need to see them through. The UK is one of the most expensive countries in which to build infrastructure, with engineering works here costing 60% more than they do in Germany. In East Anglia, we have the opportunity to provide a 21st century infrastructure model, and I will conclude by outlining its main features.
First, we need to tackle the pinch points on the roads and railways. I welcome the support that the Government have already given to the dualling of the final 9 miles of single carriageway on the A11 and the improvements to the Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight railway line. Both those projects will bring undoubted benefits to the region and will lead to the creation of new jobs. Other projects, some of which are in my constituency, will have similar benefits. The Beccles loop on the east Suffolk railway line, which the Government are supporting, will improve accessibility, as will the other two schemes that I have mentioned—the Beccles southern relief road and the third crossing in Lowestoft. The southern relief road will open up commercial land for development and will remove lorries from the town centre, thereby enhancing the town’s attraction as a shopping centre. The third crossing will have similar benefits for Lowestoft; it will open up commercial sites and help the regeneration of the town centre by reducing congestion. It will act as a catalyst for increased regeneration activity and for further investment in Lowestoft, providing an opportunity to create a perception of a positive and business-friendly location. It will enable Lowestoft to realise its full potential as an international centre for renewable energy.
There is also a need to invest in the infrastructure necessary for the energy sector to thrive. That means upgrading the electricity network, with a new offshore grid, greater interconnection with Europe and a smart grid and smart metering. The provision of superfast broadband across Suffolk and the rest of East Anglia is of crucial importance to the creation of jobs, particularly in hard-to-reach rural areas. The Government’s broadband strategy, which was published last month, goes a long way in setting out how that can be achieved. Suffolk needs to be in the next round of broadband pilots and I, like my fellow Suffolk MPs, will be campaigning hard for its inclusion.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current state of broadband in Norfolk and Suffolk is not acceptable and is holding businesses back? In particular, some villages are complete “not spots”, where broadband cannot be accessed.
Peter Aldous
I agree entirely with that observation. The other Suffolk MPs and I are building on the strategy that has been put forward by Suffolk businesses, and we will take full advantage of the presence in the county of BT, which owns much of the infrastructure and has its research centre at Martlesham. Suffolk offers a unique opportunity for BT to show what can be done in delivering comprehensive high-speed coverage across the whole county, including in those hard-to-reach areas. To move the situation forward in Suffolk, BT needs to provide information on exactly when it intends to intervene and which exchanges in Suffolk it will upgrade. That will allow other, smaller providers to work on a bottom-up basis to consider which of the remaining areas they will be able to reach.
My Christmas message to the Government is to thank them for providing the framework for a 21st century infrastructure, and to urge them to make the necessary investment in East Anglia, so that we can play our part in securing the recovery, rebalancing the economy and creating new private sector jobs.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Business Secretary intends to come to the Chamber this afternoon to make a statement on his policy on News Corporation’s bid to take full control of BSkyB? As you may be aware, it is reported today that the Secretary of State has said that he has
“declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.”
Given that he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in considering that takeover, surely he must immediately step aside from any further involvement with that decision. Can you advise us whether you have been notified that either the Business Secretary or, indeed, the Prime Minister intend to come before the House today to confirm that that is what will now happen?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, which I think I can deal with quite succinctly. I have not received any notification that the Government are to make any comments, whether from the Business Secretary or anybody else this afternoon, on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but I am sure that Government Front Benchers will have heard him.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The current chaos on our roads is expensive for individuals, businesses and the country as a whole, and, although we cannot control the weather, we can control the way in which we respond to it. I have mentioned winter tyres in previous debates and been told that they are not appropriate for this country. I shall try to convince the House that they are.
Winter tyres are designed to be more effective than regular tyres in temperatures under 7° C on any type of road, and the Met Office advises us that for most of the winter even this country is below 7° C. They are manufactured with a larger percentage of natural rubber and silica in the compound, which does not harden as much as synthetic rubber in cold conditions. They have a tread pattern designed to cope with slush and cold rain, as well as with snow and ice, and they are safer than any standard tyre in cold, dry conditions below 7° C, because the tread compound heats up at lower rolling temperatures to create grip in low temperatures.
I am not arguing for studded ice tyres or snow chains. I make that point explicitly, because even the Transport Secretary seems to have misunderstood me. Both cause damage to road surfaces, and I understand that snow chains are illegal unless they are used on a road surface with compacted snow. Winter tyres work, however. I do not claim for one moment to be an expert on tyres or even on cars, because I am proud of myself when I have worked out which side the petrol cap is on. However, when I look at the reviews of such tyres, I find real evidence that they are safer and much better.
One such tyre is the Goodyear UltraGrip 7 +, and it is interesting if we compare tyre performance on braking distances. I declare an interest, because that tyre is produced by Goodyear Dunlop Tyres, which is based in Birmingham. [Laughter.] It may not have escaped Members that I am a Birmingham MP.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Irrespective of whether Goodyear is based in the hon. Lady’s constituency, I very much support what she says, because much of northern Europe, which experiences such snow, has winter tyres. It is always said that the Government or the councils must provide for the roads, but, when we have inclement weather, and if we are going to have a lot more snow, winter tyres might be one solution.
Ms Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman. The factory is not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is sitting right next to me; Birmingham and Goodyear Dunlop are well represented in the Chamber this afternoon.
It is important to realise what a significant difference a winter tyre makes. When that Goodyear tyre was tested at a speed of 25 mph, it was found that its braking distance was six car lengths, or 25 metres, better than that of a summer tyre. That is not insignificant. Similarly, when comparisons were made in wet conditions conducive to aquaplaning, that tyre’s performance was about a fifth better—grip was about 18% higher—than a normal tyre’s.
People often say, “I’ve got ABS, so I don’t need winter tyres,” but that is completely to misunderstand the function of ABS, which allows someone to continue to be in control of steering when braking. It was never meant to deal with adverse road conditions.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
A business man from near Hexham has all his employees on winter tyres. He put the issue very simply to me; he said, “You wouldn’t go out wearing flip-flops in winter. You would put on suitable footwear. Why do we not do the same with a car?”
Ms Stuart
I am grateful for that intervention because it takes me back to when I first arrived in this country 35 years ago. One of the things that always struck me is that the Brits are extraordinarily happy to talk about the weather, but very reluctant to take any notice of it in their behaviour. I have seen Brits wearing flip-flops in the middle of winter, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that ought to stop.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can the hon. Lady give us a rough idea of how much a set of four winter tyres would cost?
Ms Stuart
That is an important question. The issue is not only how much the tyres would cost, but how much people could save on their summer tyres. Furthermore, insurance companies say that the probability of an accident in adverse weather conditions goes up by 257%. There is the issue of avoiding accidents and the kind of snarl-ups on our motorways and roads caused by drivers—usually in continental rear-wheel-drive cars, the Mercs and BMWs, which were designed to have winter tyres—not being able to deal with not terribly steep inclines. The straightforward equation is that winter tyres probably do not cost as much as people think, and could save us a lot of money. The costs would depend on which tyre was chosen and whether one got a whole set of new tyres.
The industry says that in winter or when temperatures are below 7° C—that is, most of the winter—only 2% of people in this country drive cars with appropriate, winter tyres. In other words, 98% of people drive on unsafe tyres, so there is an argument for providing incentives for them to get the winter ones. At the moment, insurance companies are raising rather spurious points about whether winter tyres are modifications to the original tyres. I challenge the industry: just as there are rebates on house contents insurance if there are the right locks in a house, insurance companies should give rebates to those using winter tyres.
Furthermore, emergency services vehicles, whether ambulances or police cars, should as a matter of course have winter tyres because that would make them safer and save the country money; the practice should not be restricted only to some companies.
Guy Opperman
If I am not mistaken, it has become the law in Germany to use such tyres. If tyres are swapped over at the right time, there is fundamentally no extra cost.
Ms Stuart
That is very true. Having grown up in Germany, I can vouch for the fact that the weather there is more regularly as fierce as it has been here. I would not advocate compulsion; the last thing that people want these days is to be forced to do anything more. It is a question of persuasion.
The Dutch managed to increase the use of winter tyres from 0.5% to more than 10% over 10 years through simple awareness campaigns. People here just do not think about the issue. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for Transport seems to have changed his view between 2 December, when he thought that winter tyres were inappropriate, and now, when he says that those who can afford them should use them.
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Lady says that it is a matter of persuasion. After listening to her speech, I have also changed my mind. I am extremely persuaded and know what I shall ask for for Christmas.
Ms Stuart
I am absolutely delighted to hear that—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, we approve of that provided it is a Dunlop tyre made in Erdington.
The key thing is for people to behave in a manner that is appropriate to the weather conditions and to think ahead and order a set of tyres—whichever ones they choose—now, so that they have them in the winter. People should not make a fuss about it. Such an approach will save people money, save lives and save the economy. It is the right thing to do and we all ought to do it.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise a number of issues. Although I was delighted to see the back of the previous Labour Government and their totally discredited leadership, in recent years I have not been entirely content with the quality of ministerial responses to inquiries. We all understand that civil servants draft the letters, but if I get any more unsatisfactory replies, I will just scrawl across them the words “Not good enough” and send them back where they came from.
Joanna Cranfield was born with one arm. At the moment, I can use only one arm so I know that it presents challenges. My arm will get better; my constituent’s arm will not. She is 17 and is a very talented swimmer, who I hope will represent us in the 2012 Paralympics. Since the age of two, she has had a blue badge disability living allowance and carer’s money for her mother. Yet all that stopped at the age of 16. That is utterly ridiculous and I expect Ministers to address the matter.
My constituent Mr West took out his policy with Equitable Life before 1992. As is the case with other with-profit annuitants who took out policies before the September 1992 cut off date, he will lose a great deal of money. Unlike those who took out policies after 1 September 1992, Mr West will lose £100,000. I had certainly not appreciated that someone such as my constituent would be excluded from payments. How on earth can that be right? Again, I expect the Government to address the matter.
On Camp Ashraf, I am delighted to say that the early-day motion I have tabled has attracted 140 signatures. I am very concerned about the circumstances of the 3,500 people and 1,000 women in Camp Ashraf. Those residing in the camp have undergone psychological torture and serious medical restrictions. The UK Court of Appeal found that the People’s Mujahedin of Iran was not involved in terrorism and yet it still appears on the US terror list. That is absolutely disgraceful and I very much hope that Ministers will support the PMOI and allow Maryam Rajavi to visit this country.
My constituent Stephen James Bristow is serving a 26-year prison sentence in Thailand for possession of 24 grams of amphetamine. His parents, who are 74 and 78, came to see me recently. He shares a cell with 50 people in absolutely unbelievable circumstances. His flatmate was apparently responsible for the drugs and has committed suicide. I am asking a Minister to intervene, so that we can at the very least get that gentleman back to this country to serve the rest of his time.
Another constituent, Jackie Currie, was the chairman of the National Association of Official Prison Visitors, which is a very successful organisation that helps to represent the interests of official prison visitors. Recently, that organisation has undergone a change in its leadership and has petitioned to become a charity. The Ministry of Justice grant agreement—the main source of funding—states that the grant was awarded for activities around official prison visitors, including helping the National Offender Management Service to maintain a central database of said visitors. The charitable status puts at risk that whole concept and basically means that the organisation will not function properly. Again, I hope that Ministers will intervene.
Another constituent, Cherry Sholem, finds that her son, who has learning difficulties and suffers from dyspraxia, is not doing well in mainstream school. The simple fact is that Southend council cannot afford to provide the sort of education that Mrs Sholem believes her son should receive. I think that I have now had somewhere in the region of 1,000 e-mails from Mrs Sholem, so I would be grateful, again, if a Government Minister could assist.
I have been dealing with the case of Mr Ian Shirley and his partner, Ms Ida Hammond, who sadly died as a result of ill-health caused by the late stages of dementia. They were partners for 29 years and lived together for almost 10 years. Following complaints by Ms Hammond’s children, she was taken without explanation from Mr Shirley’s care and placed in a care home. She sadly died later. Again, I am asking for a Minister to intervene on that issue.
The ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell, retires in a month’s time. On behalf of all the members of the all-party group on the Holy See, I wish to pay tribute to him for all his excellent work.
Finally, I want to wish everyone a very happy Christmas, good health, peace, prosperity and a wonderful new year.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on initiating the debate on winter tyres. I should like briefly to say something about the impacts and benefits. The impact on the economy of what has been happening over the past seven days has been enormous. Last weekend, the retail sector in Birmingham, which was suffering gridlock, lost a third of its anticipated business. Distribution and logistics companies in the midlands such as DPD and TNT, which serve retail and manufacturing industries and Royal Mail, have had immense problems in discharging their responsibilities at their busiest time of the year. Royal Mail itself has had to take on an additional 7,000 employees. I pay tribute to the remarkable postmen and postwomen out there in all weathers serving this country well.
The impact has also been felt in terms of accidents. Last weekend, the ambulance service in Birmingham had 3,000 calls in one day—Saturday—many of them about very serious accidents that occurred as a consequence of the appalling weather that hit the city.
Increasingly, the problem is that citizens are struggling to get where they want to in Britain—even to admirable counties such as Suffolk and Norfolk. The benefit of winter tyres is therefore absolutely clear. Sadly, we no longer have the tyre industry in Britain that we once had. At its height, Fort Dunlop in my constituency had 15,000 employees. There is still the aircraft tyres factory that employs 400 people; it is a highly successful company. Britain no longer has mass production of car tyres. However, we still have the Michelin factory in Stoke and the Goodyear factory in Wolverhampton. I know both factories very well and visited them personally when I was deputy general secretary of Unite. Both have the capacity and technology to manufacture winter tyres. If we were to promote winter tyres, as we must, given the chaos of the past seven days and the certainty that we will have further bitter winters of the kind we are encountering at the moment, the benefits would be enormous for our economy generally and for the motor manufacturing cluster in the midlands, employing 150,000 people, in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston is absolutely right to raise this issue, because winter tyres will save money if insurance companies incentivise; she is right when she says that that would be the thing to do. The evidence from continental experience is that that would save them money in reduced insurance claims. It would save lives and it could create jobs. Let us hope, therefore, as we wish this House a very merry Christmas, that this is the last winter in Britain that we see this lack of winter tyres. The future must lie in people being smart, buying British, buying winter tyres, saving themselves money, and being able to get to admirable places such as Suffolk and Norfolk.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after such erudite speeches from both sides of the House. I will speak on a matter that is specific to Suffolk and Newmarket and that affects the racing industry across the country.
Charles II was the first to make Newmarket the headquarters of the horse racing industry, and it is now its global headquarters. I will speak briefly about Newmarket’s position as the headquarters of that great sport. In Newmarket, there are 2,500 racehorses in training, 70 miles of gallops, 62 studs, the world leader in equine sales in Tattersalls, 79 training yards and 5,000 people who are directly or indirectly associated with the industry. Many of those people and organisations support me because I am an unambiguous supporter of the racing industry. The industry contributes to the economy across the country, making £3 billion and employing 100,000 people.
The future of the sport is tied intimately to gambling and the people who place bets on races—that includes many Members in this Chamber. We know that people love to bet. [Interruption.] Members are shaking their heads, but I think that it is an honourable and enjoyable thing to do, rather than something to query. Money from betting makes up 50% of prize money in racing, and that prize money attracts owners to race their horses and attracts some of the biggest international names to invest money in Britain. Heads of State, international business men and sportsmen, and punters who can afford to own a whole or part of a horse, love to race. Part of the thrill of racing is the potential for a prize.
The sport is not without its problems. The amount of money from the horserace betting levy that is transferred into prizes has fallen from £115 million to £75 million over recent years. Prize money in Britain is, on average, the 37th in the world. The levy, which was first put in place in 1961, is highly bureaucratic. Each year, it depends on the decision of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on how much money should be transferred from the gambling industry to racing, to reflect the product that racing provides for people to bet on, and therefore for the gambling industry to profit from. The transfer of value is a policy response to the value provided by racing, which everybody can bet on. That bureaucratic solution, which ends up with a decision by the Secretary of State, is extremely old-fashioned.
Peter Aldous
I speak as a racing enthusiast who often makes his way across Suffolk to visit the race course in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Does he agree that there is something very wrong in the way in which racing has been financed for the past 50 years, in that other sports, such as football and cricket, sell their television rights to television companies, whereas racing has to pay Channel 4 to show it?
Matthew Hancock
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that important point. Sorting out the pictures from racing and where the money from those pictures goes to is an important part of having a sustainable future for racing. There is an issue with the sale not only of the pictures, but of the product upon which so many bets are laid. We must consider the future of the transfer of value from the product.
In the short term, the Secretary of State has a consideration to make over the coming months. I urge the Government to find in racing’s favour on the grounds that for a sustainable and successful racing industry, on which the gambling industry depends, there must be a reasonable transfer of value from gambling to racing. I also urge them to examine long-term solutions—for instance by removing the threshold under which betting shops pay no levy, by ensuring that offshore betting on UK races is levied upon, and by examining betting exchanges in which an ordinary punter lays the bet rather than an organisation. Such bets escape the levy, but the laying of a bet in any circumstances, whether by a corporate organisation or a punter, is still part of the turnover of betting.
In Ireland, a 1% levy on all wins has just been introduced, to recognise the transfer of value involved. That applies across all sports, so that racing is not separated out in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) alluded to. The French have a system of a 1% transfer of value, plus saleable rights to bet on the industry. I urge the Government to consider all such options.
Everybody involved in the debate, whether on the racing side, the gambling side or in between, would agree that there is a desperate need for the levy to be modernised. In an environment in which money is tight and a bureaucratic system has existed for many decades, there is great pressure to get it right. That pressure is increasing, because racing is increasingly a world sport rather than merely a domestic one. The amount of money that is bet offshore is recognition of that. It is critical that we seize this moment to secure for Britain global leadership, in the future as we have had in the past, in this golden sport on which my constituency thrives.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
May I start by wishing everyone here in the House of Commons a very happy Christmas? The staff do an amazing job, and I am deeply grateful to them for their last seven months of work.
I must declare an interest as a former jockey who, for his sins, still rides as an amateur. I probably would not have got through my school days were I not also a former bookmaker. I financed a large part of my school days by running an illegal book when I was aged about 12 and 13, and I avoided the law very impressively. It is a wonder I ever survived.
I have also been lucky enough to have ridden upsides a wealth of great jockeys, and I know Tony McCoy, for example. I congratulate him on winning the BBC sports personality of the year award. He once got off a horse of mine at Fontwell Park, which is a weird and wonderful figure-of-eight track unique in this country, and he said, “Do you know, you should have ridden this horse. You would have probably done better, the two of you.” People cannot comprehend what a compliment that was from the man who has won 15 champion jockey’s titles and has been undefeated as champion jockey since 1995. He was clearly wrong in his estimation of my abilities as a jockey—he was always very charitable when off the horse, but uncompromising when on it.
Matthew Hancock
I, too, warmly congratulate Tony McCoy on his victory in the sports personality of the year award, and of course on his grand national win this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sports personality of the year victory shows just how highly the nation values racing, and therefore the urgency and importance of the Government’s decision?
Guy Opperman
I endorse that comment entirely, and I see that my hon. Friend is wearing his royal purple, from the outfit that he is going to wear to Newmarket or wherever the next race will be.
We are dealing with one of the most impressive, successful and world-renowned sports, and we must do everything we can to support it. I speak as someone whose father rode in the grand national, and who represents the wonderful constituency of Hexham. It has many assets, not least the amazing race course that sits high above the town. From there, one can see Hadrian’s wall and three or four counties, and it is worth going there. I rode there in June 2009 and I confess that I am trying to persuade someone else to give me a ride again. But it is proving a little difficult as most people do not regard an ageing politician as their ideal jockey.
It is a sorry tale that the betting levy has been in such dispute for so long—in the House and in the racing forum. We are one of the few world leaders, on many levels and, if we fail to support racing, it will be the worst kind of short-sightedness. Both sides of the dispute accept that they have to run their organisation better and that the product must be improved. Many people are improving it—there is now much more diversity to the racing product. For example, 10 or 15 years ago, the idea that one would go racing and, at the end, watch Madness or Girls Aloud would not have been believed. Yet 20,000 people come to see them, and get everything going. That is a great credit to racing, but not enough is being done.
The overwhelming impression is that far too many have the bookmakers’ interests at heart. Since I became a Member, I have been struck by the might of the bookmaking industry. The truth is that bookmaking could not survive in its current form without horse racing. I therefore urge Ministers to do everything possible to support the work of trainers and the Jockey Club to sustain racing.
We are considering a small amount of money. One must not forget that in 2008, the levy was £115 million and in 2010, it was just over £75 million. That is the difference between total success and abject failure. None of the businesses, trainers, owners, jockeys—none of the infrastructure—would survive without adequate support from the levy.
It is a crucial decision. We are world leaders in so few things. One could argue that we were best at being unable to cope with snow until the great arrival of German winter tyres to bring us through. However, we are world leaders in one brand—horse racing. Clearly, investment needs to be made in the future of that great product. We need only look at the breeding that supports the infrastructure, and the hundreds of thousands of people who work day in, day out. I have been a stable lad and done my three horses.
Peter Aldous
I wholeheartedly endorse the policy that both my hon. Friends espouse. Do they agree that racing interests would be best served by speaking with one voice? There are currently too many sectional interests.
Guy Opperman
There is a diverse set of interests, largely because many individuals work on an individual basis, whereas bookmakers are multinational, FTSE 100, powerful companies. Betfair is one of the major companies launched in the past few years and Ladbrokes and William Hill are big companies. It would be better if we could speak with one voice. Racing is trying to do that.
I urge hon. Members to think of the sense of community and the wondrous people in Lambourn, Newmarket, Malton and Pulborough. They are special places, which we will lose if we do not get behind Ministers, and Ministers do not make an effort.
Horse racing is a wondrous and special sport. On 26 December, the whole world will be focused on Kauto Star’s attempt to win his fifth King George. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to encourage us all to get behind the fight for racing, which cannot be allowed to wither and die. That will happen unless we change things.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I rise to make a plea to the Department for Transport to rescue my constituents from their plight. I am referring not to the temporary difficulties caused by unexpectedly seasonal weather, but to the long-suffering of my constituents on overcrowded First Great Western services in some parts of my constituency, and to their suffering from the woefully absent services in other parts.
However, before I speak about that, I should like to raise the urgent matter of the forthcoming closure for refurbishment of the Chippenham driving test centre. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for road safety, has previously heard my calls for Wiltshire residents not to have to travel so far for a driving test. Many have experienced that difficulty since the closure of the Trowbridge driving test centre under the previous Government. However, should plans to close temporarily the Chippenham centre proceed in February, learner drivers in Wiltshire will have to travel as far as Bristol, Swindon or Salisbury. The good news is that the former driving test centre premises in Trowbridge are still available, and I urge the Minister to request that the Driving Standards Agency considers moving the Chippenham centre operation to Trowbridge during the period of those works.
I am always happy to offer solutions to the Government when I seek action from them, including in respect of the overcrowded trains to which I referred. Just over a month ago, the Transport Secretary set out his proposals for future rail investment, including one to cascade 650 additional carriages to the network outside London by March 2014. I should like to make the case for assigning even just one of those carriages to the trans-Wilts line, which links the five largest population centres in Wiltshire.
The line was a popular and well used service until the start of the current First Great Western franchise in 2006, when the requirement to provide a meaningful trans-Wilts service was dropped by the previous Government. Overcrowding is currently a serious problem on trains in and out of Bath. The problem is made worse because passengers cannot travel directly between Trowbridge and Chippenham—they are forced to re-route through Bath.
The Cardiff to Portsmouth line particularly suffers from overcrowding, as I told the Secretary of State following his statement. I am in no doubt that that line warrants some of those additional carriages. However, I suspect that without the benefit of some local knowledge, his officials could overlook the contribution that a single extra carriage assigned to the trans-Wilts line will make in alleviating the problem, since it will provide the direct route that is currently missing at all but the extremes of the day.
For example, at Melksham, there are currently only two train services each way a day, scheduled at deeply unhelpful times for commuters. A worker from Melksham who wishes to use those services to travel to work in Swindon would be obliged to work a 12-hour day before counting their travel time. To say the least, that is impractical. A single extra 153-class carriage would make possible four extra return services per day between Swindon and Salisbury. In due course, with a second 153 car, a regular and reliable hourly service throughout the day would be possible. At the same time, that would relieve pressure on overcrowded trains through Bath.
In the debate following the Secretary of State’s announcement on 25 November, he assured me that decisions to allocate those carriages will be determined not by the commercial position of franchisees, but by the wider economic benefits that extra capacity can bring. The trans-Wilts line can pass that test. For a start, there are no infrastructure constraints to expanding that service—no new track to lay, and no platforms or buildings to construct. There is passenger demand for such a service. Figures show a 10% growth in passenger numbers in west Wiltshire each year since 2005. The trans-Wilts service operated by Wessex Trains between 2001 and 2006 experienced strong year-on-year growth in passenger numbers, and more than 500,000 people live in the crescent between Swindon and Salisbury, which the line serves.
Indeed, the Wessex chamber of commerce and other local businesses have added their strong support for a service at economically meaningful times to connect the county’s population centres. The service would indeed support the footprint of the local enterprise partnership that is planned for Swindon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. Wiltshire council has plans temporarily to move offices to close to Melksham station next year, which would provide an additional boost to demand while the service establishes itself.
That is a strong economic case, and I must pay tribute to the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership, which continues to co-ordinate the campaign for better rail services in our area. Improving the trans-Wilts line is not a costly or high-risk proposition. It is simply a bid to regain a service that was popular and well used, and which should never have been removed from the franchise in the first place.
I do not make a habit of writing lengthy or over-optimistic Christmas lists. Some hon. Members will receive a shiny, high-speed train set for their constituents, but for me and the long-suffering commuters of Wiltshire one or two second-hand carriages would grant us our Christmas wish.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Christmas is a time that parents look forward to celebrating with their children when they can. However, for many parents that is not possible—and I am thinking not only of our troops in Afghanistan, but of the 3 million children in this country who live apart from a parent and, in particular, of those who are caught in the family justice system. I think particularly of non-resident parents who are trying to get access to or have contact time, as it is called, with their children. This issue also affects grandparents, aunts and uncles to a very great degree.
Sadly, it is abundantly clear that the present family justice system is much too slow. Its processes are greatly abused by parents with no penalty or sanctions applied. It is far too expensive in many cases. One of my constituents, a father, came to see me to say that he had spent more than £8,000 obtaining a court-sanctioned contact order to see his children. He did not abuse that order, but it was not honoured and he could not get it upheld by the courts or the police. Unsurprisingly, he was then short of money to pay maintenance as he wanted to do.
The most vivid example of the failure to honour a court order came from a warrant officer who came to see me. He took his civilian overcoat off and underneath he was in uniform. On his chest was his badge of office—a crown, as those who have served in the armed forces will know—and he put the court order on the table in front of me with the crown of the court on it, stipulating that he should have time with his children every other weekend. That court order was not honoured, and it was not upheld by the police or the courts. He felt deeply let down.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend see merit in a default position, whereby both parents have a duty to maintain contact with the children without having to go to court first?
Andrew Selous
We can learn a lot from countries such as Australia, which has a much more shared parenting approach, uses much more mediation and is generally more successful.
Another of my constituents is a young father who has a valid contact order in place. He previously had full custody of his little girl. He is not in any way dangerous—indeed, he is a devoted dad. He last saw his daughter in July. She cries out when she sees him and her grandmother in the local shopping centre, longing to be with him. He has tried since July to get a court date to see her before Christmas, but that has not been possible. He left my surgery in tears after I had updated him on what the family court service had said about his case.
Another constituent also had a valid contact order and on 21 June, the Monday after fathers’ day, he received a text to say that the mother of his child had disappeared, leaving no address. Even after a court seek-and-find procedure, no address was provided. A first court date was set in a court a long way away from where my constituent lives, but it was adjourned. When the case did get into court on 4 October, the proceedings were shambolic, the judge was not well briefed and the appropriate file was not there. The case was adjourned again until 30 November and, on 28 November, the mother succeeded in getting that hearing adjourned, as—allegedly—a medical report on the child was not ready. When my extremely persistent constituent finally got the case into court earlier this month, he found that the medical report was dated 18 November and had been available for the earlier court hearing, but of course there was no sanction on the mother. The courts allow difficult parents to deprive their children of a relationship with their father.
I am proud to be an MP for a Government who are radical and reforming in many ways, and I put it to the House that we need radical reform of the family justice system. We need a system that is much less winner takes all, less confrontational and less expensive; and we need a system that provides proper enforcement of court-sanctioned contact orders.
Matthew Hancock
Has my hon. Friend seen the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office reports into CAFCASS, showing that the extremely moving examples that he has highlighted today are not isolated cases but part of a wider problem in the family court system?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He is right. The problem affects every single one of us in the Chamber and is an issue on which we need urgent progress. The input of mothers and fathers, where safe—that is the vast majority of cases—is hugely beneficial to children.
The language we use in these cases is extremely unhelpful. I really dislike the terms “non-resident parent”, which suggests some sort of absentee parent forced to leave their own home, and “parent with care”—why should one parent have to do all the caring? Is that not unfair to mothers, to whom it often applies? The term “contact” is a cold and unfeeling term for what is the strongest of all human bonds. Would “daddy time” or “mummy time” not be more appropriate?
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), Australia takes a much better approach. Its approach, which was introduced hand-in-hand with reforms to the child maintenance system, is to regard a separated couple as two single parents, with the emphasis, wherever possible, on as much shared parenting as possible, not on one “parent with care” and a distant “non-resident parent”. That matters greatly, because there are very positive results for children when separated parents are involved in their children’s lives. Earlier this year, one of the most recent academic studies on this subject, by Fabricius et al, showed that when separated parents are involved to a greater degree with their children, it produces better school results, fewer suspensions and lower drop-out rates. There are clearly positive results to be had, so we need a real change of emphasis in this area. We need people in the public sector, such as general practitioners and teachers, to take the rights of non-resident parents seriously where the latter want to be involved in their children’s lives.
I would commend Australia again. In Perth in western Australia, it was found that one of the reasons parents with care were giving for not allowing contact time with children was their concern that the fathers would not be able to look after the children properly. As a result, courses in child health were set up for fathers to facilitate greater shared care—a very practical suggestion. I put it to the Minister, therefore, that on this issue we have made too little progress for far too long, causing far too much heartache to too many of our constituents. As I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff of the House a very happy Christmas, I ask everyone to reflect briefly on those good parents who long to be with their children this Christmas but who will be denied that opportunity.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House in saying that this has been a most interesting and informative debate. I, for one, have learned a lot about subjects that I hardly knew existed as subjects, although I feel somewhat inadequate that my constituency does not have a race track or, indeed, a tyre factory—I hope that those things can be remedied as soon as possible.
I want to speak about unemployment levels, which is a subject that affects most hon. Members’ constituencies, and what I believe charitable organisations can do to help to alleviate it. I have done a lot of work on unemployment in Watford. At 3.1%, we do not have a particularly high unemployment level in gross terms, but we do have a lot of young people—the figure has nearly doubled in the past two and a half years. We also have quite a few people on incapacity benefit, many of whom wish to be taken off it and to move into work. I feel that the system has very much failed them. During the summer I commissioned a research project with some students to look into unemployment, speaking to young people in particular. We were quite amazed at how many of the 560 young people on jobseeker’s allowance were at home, demoralised and demotivated, making it difficult for them to go out and get work.
My central argument today is that we should encourage the charitable sector to help to alleviate the problem, because I believe that it can do far better than some of the commercial providers that are currently involved in the different job schemes. Last week I met a remarkable lady who is the mother of one of my constituents who is registered disabled. Lindsey Gibson has some problems with speech, but she is determined to get herself a job. She told me a tale of how firms such as Kennedy Scott are paid a lot of money by Government, with the best of intentions, to get people off jobseeker’s allowance or incapacity benefit. However, often people turn up and are told to leave after five minutes because there is no one there to teach them or because the computers are not working—they are given every excuse under the sun. It is quite disgraceful that such companies are not monitored, and my constituent is only one of a number of people who have mentioned this to me.
Let us look at the two new schemes that have been brought forward and how they use charitable organisations. Under the Work Together scheme, Jobcentre Plus encourages unemployed people to consider taking up voluntary work while looking for paid employment. Miss Gibson, whom I saw last week, was discouraged from doing that in the past, because people said that while she was doing voluntary work she was not able to look for work and would therefore not qualify for benefits. The Government are changing that, which is absolutely right. Doing voluntary work could mean working in a charity shop, which gives people confidence and allows them to network with other people. The hours are often flexible enough to allow people to go to job interviews and do what they really want to do. We have to encourage that. We cannot have rules that say that people cannot do more than 16 hours a week.
Work Choice, which is the other programme, is doing good work in Hertfordshire, and in Watford in particular, via the Shaw Trust, a charitable organisation that helps disabled people into work. Progress is being made. I would encourage the Government and charitable organisations to get involved in that work, because they can do it a lot better than private enterprise. If we had a race course or a tyre factory where people could work, things might be different, but we do not. We have to make do with Camelot—it is not involved in gambling, because people are playing a game—which employs 700 people. Camelot is a serious organisation; the reason I mention it is that it works in the community on helping people to get jobs. Some private companies are so fattened by the fees that they have received for training courses that I am reminded of that old advert—I think it was for Bran Flakes—in which people on a boat sang, “They’re tasty, tasty, very, very tasty. They’re very tasty.” This has to stop, so the more that we can deal with charitable organisations, the better.
I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that hon. Members sympathise, as I do, with the Deputy Leader of the House, because how he will deal with all these different subjects between now and Christmas and the new year I do not know.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
I realise that many colleagues’ minds will not be on the business of the House, but on their Christmas lunch. If they are still in search of provisions, may I suggest that they head to Norfolk, where they can find their entire lunch? If they should be stuck in Norfolk, because of the inclement weather—
Elizabeth Truss
Indeed. If hon. Members are stuck in Norfolk, may I suggest that they will be catered for? Not only will they be able to purchase their turkey, potatoes, Brussels sprouts and a mountain of vegetables; we also have the world’s biggest sugar factory, so dessert is catered for. A by-product of the sugar factory is the heat that it generates, and tomatoes are produced in the greenhouses there. There is cheese—the Binham Blue and the Wells Alpine—for the cheeseboard, and, for those after-dinner drinks, we also have the only English whisky distillery.
Norfolk is indeed a county of bounty, with 80% of the land used for food and farming. It often strikes me that if Martians were to come to Earth and watch prime-time TV programmes such as “Come Dine with Me” and “River Cottage”, they would think that we were all obsessed with food. They would imagine that we spent all day thinking about where our food came from and how it was produced. They would also believe Norfolk to be a dominant part of the British economy, with its strong food and farming industry. There have been excellent developments at local level. An example is the development of the Norfolk food hub, which I am assured will have goats grazing on the grass roof of its exciting new building, but there has not been a growth of food exports in relation to food imports. In fact, over the past 10 years, we have imported nearly twice as much food, relative to exports, as we used to do.
Elizabeth Truss
It is shocking, particularly given that farming and food production is now Britain’s biggest manufacturing industry. The farming and food industry is often seen as a cost centre, rather than an income generator. In fact, at heart, it is a commercial enterprise. We can see that if we go to the Swaffham poultry auction, or the Swaffham market. I believe that agriculture and food need the same access as other industries to talented people and to capital, because that would help to generate more income from the food and farming industry.
One of the huge issues for food and farming is the high demand for skills and new input into the industry. Running an average farm now requires only an eighth of the number of people needed 40 years ago, owing to mechanisation and improved technology, but those people need to be highly skilled. They need to be technically trained, and they need to understand business. There are opportunities in agriculture for highly skilled engineers, technicians and graduates from other disciplines. For example, David Lawrence, who runs the very successful agricultural academy, Easton college, spent 18 months searching for an agricultural engineer. This is a problem for farmers and for the food industry across my constituency, and it is very important to get graduates and skilled engineers into the industry. It is a great industry, and we need to encourage talented, qualified people to come to Norfolk to work in it.
Unlike America, England does not have vast prairies that yield economies of scale. We do, however, have great access to European markets, high quality products and immense marketing capability, and we need to use them more. Let us look at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s progress in expanding exports. I fully support its efforts to make greater use of our commercial capabilities and our embassies and high commissions abroad. Food and farming should be one of the leading industries that the FCO promotes. Heygate’s flour mill in Downham Market has had great success in promoting flour products in the middle east, for example, and there is no reason why such successes cannot be replicated across other industries.
We can deliver for Britain. Agriculture has a great future as an export industry because of the sheer quality of our produce, but it also has an immense emotional connection to Britain. Internationally, people value British food. I was at an airport recently, and I saw Marmite on sale, ready for people to take out of the country. That is the kind of export leader that we need to think about.
I was shocked to read that we now import 67% of our apples. In the 1960s and 1970s, great orchards were uprooted so that we could have the Pink Lady apple in this country. Anyone who remembers our native breeds knows that an English apple tastes better, and I would particularly recommend Norfolk apples. It would be of huge benefit to the Treasury to see more native apples exported, as well as being eaten here, and it would be great to see the fens repopulated by the fabulous orchards that used to dominate the region. May I also say that good practice starts at home?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Let me take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to wish you and all Members of the House, as well as its staff and their families, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
In April 2008, the previous Government introduced the local housing allowance as a new way of calculating housing benefit for tenants in the private sector. The allowance is paid directly to the tenant, who should pass it on to the landlord as rent. The housing allowance and direct payments to tenants allow prospective tenants to “shop around” with their allowances, but following the introduction of local housing allowances more than 41% of private landlords—an increase of 4%—are not letting to tenants who receive such allowances, mainly because of the lack of a guarantee that rents will be received. The greatest difficulty facing many landlords with local housing allowance tenants is their inability to obtain rents. Currently, when tenants are in arrears, landlords must wait for a minimum of eight weeks before they can request direct payments.
I recently attended a meeting of the Calderdale landlords association in Calder Valley. The picture that was painted was of a sector in meltdown. No fewer than 350 properties belonging to the members of the association who were present at the meeting are in danger of being withdrawn from those receiving local housing allowances, entirely owing to the lack of guarantees.
In far too many cases throughout England, tenants move in, pay the first month’s rent, and then do not pay for two months. Leaving arrears, they then move across the border to neighbouring local authority areas and repeat the process. Then, of course, they move on again. Many pay only three months’ rent in 12 months. The cost to landlords is getting out of hand, and the practice is keeping rental charges far too high. Honest, decent people who pay their rent on time are subsidising many people who do not. A landlord who contacted me recently said that in a portfolio of 15 houses, seven tenants were more than two months in arrears, and five of them had moved on owing well over £1,000 each in rent. The cost to landlords of pursuing back rents is also expensive, and landlords incurring that additional expense often have no chance of receiving any money at all. As a result, many landlords do not pursue back rents, as by doing so they would only add to their losses.
At a time when supply should be increasing to meet increasing demand and take advantage of higher rents, stock levels in the sector fell by 2.7% between the first and second quarters of the year. As a consequence, not only is supply much tighter, but rents increased at a rate of 2.3% over the same period because supply is so much lower than demand.
Other issues in the sector are causing a decline in stock levels. The taxation system provides little incentive for investment in accommodation; we should allow the private rented sector to be treated in the same way as businesses. The system is also failing to identify vulnerable people who, even under the current arrangement, should be eligible for direct payment of their local housing allowance to their landlords. Many tenants are failing to manage their finances properly, falling into rent arrears and having their tenancies terminated. The safeguarding processes that exist are failing. Many landlords are reporting that rents have not been paid this month, as some tenants are choosing to spend their housing allowance on Christmas rather than paying their rents.
The solution to the crisis that is starting to develop is quite simple. The Residential Landlords Association, Shelter and Crisis all agree on two specific points. First, their tenants—who consist overwhelmingly of claimants of local housing allowance—say that they would prefer the allowance to be paid directly to their landlords. That would help people to manage their finances, and would reduce the temptation to use the allowance to pay other debts rather than paying rent. It would also provide tenants with security so they could be sure that the rent had been paid and there was no chance of losing their home.
Jack Dromey
The hon. Gentleman’s heart-rending appeal on behalf of landlords is very interesting. Will he join me in extending similar concern to the 67,000 families in the midlands facing an increase of an average of £9 a week as the consequence of £1.8 billion being taken out of housing benefit by his Government—families who can ill afford to pay £9 a week extra?
Craig Whittaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure he will agree that it was the previous Government who brought in the housing allowance, which is hindering the progress of the private rented sector and stopping investment in it, as I mentioned.
The rule by which the local housing allowance can be paid directly to landlords only when claimants become eight weeks in arrears should be replaced when a sum of one month’s rent falls into arrears for 14 days. That would prevent tenants in difficulties from getting further into debt. Allowances should also be paid calendar-monthly in advance, in line with normal rental payment practices.
For a system that was set up to give people their own choices, its failure is producing a system where rents are on the rise because of the shortage of housing in the sector and because of those who do not pay their rent and buck the system. That is without question increasing rents in the sector. That is not fair, it is not sustainable and it needs to change.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on bringing some festive cheer to this Adjournment debate with your red socks with green flashes. I am not sure whether those are holly leaves. [Interruption.] I can see things which other Members in the Chamber may not be able to see.
Unfortunately, the topic that I wish to raise today is a little more serious. In his statement of 14 December, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), announced plans for a more modern justice system that has
“more efficient courts, better facilities, and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public at large.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 816.]
I support the broad intention of those proposals, and I believe the Surrey courts service has supported this approach for some time. Since 1990, the year in which Woking court opened as the county’s new, purpose-built building, seven courthouses have been closed in total and just four magistrates courts now operate—in Guildford, Redhill, Staines and Woking.
Woking is still the best equipped court in Surrey with excellent disabled facilities, including wheelchair access and hearing loops in each court, and terrific youth and child witness provision. Woking is also the most efficient court in terms of the number of cases seen per hour relative to utilisation rates. The case throughput rate has risen from 5.43 per hour in 2008 to no less than 7.65 in 2010.
The Minister wrote to me on the day of his statement to tell me that Woking court was to close and that its workload would be transferred to Guildford and Staines. In his letter he said:
“By closing courts with low workloads, or facilities which do not meet the modern standards society expects, we have been able to release £22 million to improve and modernise the courts to which work will transfer.”
Presumably he is including potential Woking court receipts within this figure, despite it having neither a low workload nor poor facilities. However, he is closing Surrey’s most modern and best equipped court and he will find it almost impossible to raise the remaining three courts in Surrey to an equivalent standard. For example, the other courts have severe limitations with regard to which courtrooms prisoners can be produced in, whereas Woking can have prisoners produced in all three courtrooms.
The Government’s consultation response pointed out that the public areas of Staines and Guildford courts are accessible to disabled people. That is a wonderful thing for disabled visitors, but not so much use to a disabled person who wishes to access the actual courtrooms independently and safely.
While we are on the subject of the Government’s response, I am told that six financial advisers have been left off Her Majesty’s Courts Service list of staff affected by the closure. I hope the Minister will be able to correct this. There are also significant maintenance backlogs at Guildford and Staines, and I would be grateful if the Minister provided more details on them, as I believe the figures have recently changed.
If Woking court is so wonderful, why is it being closed? The reason seems to be that the Ministry of Justice has been unable to identify one of the older, less efficient courts—which would have been more in keeping with the terms of the consultation and the overall strategy—because the other magistrates courts in Surrey are co-located with county courts. Yet after seven closures in 20 years, I do not believe the county can afford to lose another court.
In 2008, Surrey had a population of just over 1.1 million people, which amounts to just over 278,000 people per court. Only one area had a higher figure—south Yorkshire—which has more than 316,000 people per courthouse, and it is not suffering a closure. If Woking court closes, Surrey’s figure will be comfortably the highest in the country, at over 371,000 per courthouse.
Elizabeth Truss
My constituency has also faced a court closure, at Thetford. Does my hon. Friend agree it is important not just that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done locally? We need to make sure that our justice system does not become over-centralised, and that people locally need to be involved.
Jonathan Lord
I could not agree more, and I think the Government’s proposals tread a fine line in respect of the issues my hon. Friend mentions.
Not only would Surrey have 371,000 people per courthouse, but Surrey’s population is increasing, by almost 20% over the next 23 years according to Surrey county council. I will also send figures to the Minister showing that Surrey already has one of the highest numbers of crimes per courthouse of any police authority outside London.
Neil Parish
My constituency also faces the problem of a courthouse closing, in Honiton. Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of defendants might not get to court if they have to travel a great distance? If they do not get to court, the police will have to arrest them later, so there could be much more bureaucracy and problems as a result of shutting a local courthouse.
Jonathan Lord
My hon. Friend makes a valuable and pertinent point. Woking also has a significant Muslim population, and it has built up good links with Woking courthouse, so the problem my hon. Friend mentions could be exacerbated in this instance.
If Woking court closes, the target utilisation rate for Staines and Guildford, where the work is due to transfer, will be 93%. That is very high, especially considering the need for significant remedial work and modernisation at those courthouses. Where will the cases go if the courts have to close to be repaired or updated? Where is the margin for error for the population growth I mentioned, or for the unexpected?
Finally, what possible grounds are there for stating that the court’s relationship with Woking’s Muslim community and with our Shah Jahan mosque
“will be maintained should the closure be ordered”?
The relationship between the mosque and the local court has been built slowly and sensitively over many years, involving specific officials from the court, who will no longer serve the current local justice area, and chairmen of a bench, which will cease to exist. The mosque will lose its link to the court because that link will be fractured, and its relationship with new and unfamiliar personnel, in an area outside its community, can neither be anticipated nor relied upon.
I urge the Minister to review all these points—I will elaborate on them when I write to him shortly—and to reflect on his decision. Several Members have intervened on me, and I sympathise with many colleagues who have also suffered closures, but I say to them that we have a court that is purpose built, has high utilisation rates, has a terrific bench, dedicated staff, fantastic disabled access and all the facilities I have mentioned, and it would be a tragedy for the county of Surrey to lose it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In the spirit of Christmas and acting as Father Christmas, I now intend to extend the time limit from six to seven minutes.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Describing a women’s refuge as a “success” is a regrettable use of the word, because in a supposedly civilised society there should be no need for a place of refuge for women and, frequently, also their children, to escape the violence, intimidation or non-physical psychological behaviour of a bullying husband, partner or father. But what has been achieved in my constituency at the Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge, and I am sure at many similar refuges around the country, can be described only as a success. I am sure that lives have been saved; certainly, battered lives have been spared further abuse and cruelty.
In the past year, the refuge has provided a safe haven for 120 women and 194 children. Across Essex, refuges have accommodated 664 women and 701 children—that is an increase of 15% over the previous year. The refuge in my constituency relies on a combination of professionals and volunteers. It represents exactly the concept that I believe the Prime Minister had in mind when he talked about “the big society”. The Colchester refuge could not operate without volunteers. In addition to the trustees, who are responsible for the organisation’s governance and financial health, there are a further 23 volunteers.
Sadly, although the operating costs of the refuge are less than half what it would cost the public purse if the children were put in care—and, thus, removed from their mother, whose whereabouts could also result in a cost to public funds—there is a real threat to its future provision and financial viability because of serious cuts to funding from the Supporting People budget. In Essex, the cut is feared to be in the region of 25% to 30%. We must examine the financial savings—these are in addition to the huge emotional good work, for which no monetary value can be given, of keeping mothers and their children united—from what refuges provide. There would otherwise be a legal statutory requirement on the relevant local authority to fund this money from the public purse.
There is arguably no worse time—or perhaps, given the awfulness of the subject, no better time—than the last parliamentary day before Christmas for me to raise one of the taboo subjects which diminish the claim that we are a civilised country: domestic violence and other abuse suffered by many women. This Saturday, about 30 children, 20 of whom are under child protection orders, will have their Christmas dinner in the Colchester refuge. If places had not been available, they would probably have had to be separated from their mothers and taken into foster care.
The directorate of children’s social care at Essex county council estimates that the cost of fostering a child for a week is £500—that excludes administration, monitoring and other associated costs. The highly respected Fostering Network puts the cost considerably higher. By contrast, the cost to Supporting People of keeping a woman with three children in Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge is £216 a week. Adding to that the housing benefit received, the cost of keeping a family together in a refuge remains less than half the basic cost of £1,000 to keep just two children in foster care.
I am certain that the pioneers who, in December 33 years ago, opened the first women’s refuge in Colchester would not have wanted things to be so desperate that such a facility was needed. Regrettably, such is the scale of the problem that in the second decade of the third millennium this accommodation in Colchester has grown from one property, a former neighbourhood shop, to two large houses. One is a big Victorian dwelling converted to provide individual spaces for women and their children, as necessary; the second is a purpose-built modern building that should be viewed as the benchmark for such provision. I recall attending the official opening of the older dwelling.
There is also a third building, which is a daytime centre providing non-residential advice and support for women living in disturbing relationships. Although the buildings are located in my constituency, the Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge covers two local authority areas—those of Colchester borough council and Tendring district council. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) covers parts of both those local authorities.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for raising this matter on the Adjournment of the House. Does he agree that the concern is that Essex county council’s decision to withdraw funds will result in increased costs for the council? I assure him that the Public Administration Committee, which I chair, is examining this problem in general and is considering how the voluntary sector is affected by reductions in public spending of this nature.
Bob Russell
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has visited the refuge and is working with colleagues at Essex country council to try to resolve the financial problems to which I refer. We might disagree on some things, but I am confident that we have shared objectives on this occasion. I also understand that the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), whose constituency is exclusively in Tendring district, will visit the refuge in the new year.
With a background as a journalist who reported on court cases, and with long service in local government where I came across much of life, I thought that I was streetwise, but in my time as a Member I have been shocked by how some male members of the species can be such “bar stewards”. I am sure that it has been the constituency experience of colleagues throughout the House.
It was because of my growing concerns about domestic violence that I was able, when I served on the Home Affairs Committee, to encourage colleagues to hold an inquiry into the subject. We heard harrowing stories as we gathered evidence. In the course of the inquiry, I accompanied the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), on a visit to the Colchester women’s refuge to meet members of staff and some of the residents. The Committee’s report on domestic violence, forced marriage and “honour” based violence was published on 13 June 2008.
Domestic violence is a subject that people do not normally want to talk about, but here in Parliament it is important that we do. An analysis of 10 separate domestic violence studies came up with consistent findings: one in four women experiences domestic violence at some point of their lives, with between 6% and 10% suffering in any given year. The British crime survey, looking at England and Wales for 2003, found an estimated 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence against women and 2.5 million against men. Although only a minority of incidents of domestic violence are reported to the police, on average the police still receive one call about domestic violence every minute—1,300 calls a day, more than 570,000 each year.
In that context, the need for women’s refuges is such that it would be wrong for there to be cuts that imperilled their future. We have to accept, as a sad reflection on society, that a small minority of men behave in an appalling way. The Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge provides a safe haven. A combination of professional staff and volunteers do a fantastic job, but I am concerned that the unintended consequences of Government policies—implemented by Essex county council, cutting the Supporting People funding for refuges—could seriously affect what is done. I urge the Government to ensure that women’s refuges are allowed to continue the excellent work that they undertake.
Moving from one serious subject to another, I note that this Christmas approximately 3,000 of my constituents will not enjoy the festivities with their family. I refer to the soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade, based at the Colchester garrison, who are deployed to Afghanistan and predominantly Helmand province. Most are at Camp Bastion, but others have been deployed throughout the province, including those soldiers at the forward operational bases, the FOBs. To them and their families back in the UK, I am sure the whole House will wish to send Christmas greetings and its hopes for a peaceful return in the new year.
Finally, to my constituents, royalists and republicans alike, let us look forward not only to Christmas but to the royal wedding. If the republicans do not want to celebrate, I hope that they will still enjoy the day off.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your Christmas generosity in allowing us an extra minute to speak. I wish you, all Members and those who look after us so well in the House a very happy Christmas.
Members have spoken about court closures, racing stables and winter tyres. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) talked about the wonderful food in Norfolk, and I could not let this opportunity pass without saying not only that is Norfolk food good, but that Devon food is excellent. With one’s Christmas pudding, one must have some Devonshire cream and make sure that one has some grass-fed Devonshire lamb and beef to go alongside it—perhaps a bit of turkey too.
I rise to speak about heating oil, another matter very important to rural constituencies. My constituency is 40 miles long; it starts on Exmoor and ends up in the sea at Seaton. There is a huge rural area within those boundaries, and many of the villages and hamlets there have no mains gas supply. Their only alternative to electricity for heating is oil. That is why the postcode lottery on what people pay for heating oil must stop.
During business questions last week, I made the point that during November and early December, crude oil prices went up by 17% and that the price of heating oil went up by 70%. There is no justification for that. Within rural areas, there are many old properties—some are farm houses, some are small cottages—and they are difficult to insulate with modern insulation and expensive to heat. People need more fuel to heat them, and if we lump on to that the huge increase in price, a lot of the heating allowances for poorer people just do not go very far at all.
About 2 million properties rely on heating oil; they are mostly in rural areas and 828,000 of them are in England. Recently, as I said, there has been a spike in oil prices that could add as much as £540 a year to the average family’s heating bill. The price of heating oil tends to rise gradually in the winter months, when demand is at its highest. A home owner might use anything between 2,500 to 4,000 litres of oil. Price rises during winter are unavoidable, but the price rises that we have seen cannot be justified simply by supply and demand.
Craig Whittaker
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituents who have contacted me in the past couple of days to express the real suspicion that the supply of oil is being held back to inflate prices artificially, with the companies knowing full well that the average UK home that uses oil can store only up to 60 days’ worth? In effect, those homes have to buy oil when winter is at its worst.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, some oil companies unscrupulously deliver oil at a very high price and hold back on deliveries under contracts that are sold at a lower price. The issue really needs to be sorted out.
That brings me neatly to my next point. Crude oil accounts for 48% of the cost of heating oil. The largest next component, accounting for 45%, includes the cost of distribution and marketing. The refining process accounts for only 7%.
The average price of a litre of heating oil in Northern Ireland, which has had some of the worst of the recent weather, is 48p per litre, or 52p in Belfast—and given that weather, the cost of delivery and getting the tankers to the houses would be among the greatest. The average price in the south of England at the moment is 80p per litre, while in the middle of England it is 68p, in Wales it is 67p and in Scotland it is 64p per litre. What justification is there for someone in the south of England having to pay nearly twice as much as people in Northern Ireland? During the same period, the price of petrol at the pumps has gone up by only 10p per litre.
I say clearly to the Business Secretary that it is time that we did something about the situation. At the moment, he is considering establishing the position of an ombudsman to consider food prices and whether supermarkets’ buying power is too great. I urge him to get on with that as quickly as he can. I do not know whether he wants to go down this route, but I suggest that having an adjudicator or ombudsman for heating oil might provide some sort of solution to the problem that I have outlined. I am not thinking of a huge bureaucracy but of somebody people could contact to ask why their heating oil is so expensive in their parts of the country. Those companies would have to justify what they are actually charging. At the moment, there is misery being made out of cold weather and some people have no source of heating other than oil fires, Agas and boilers.
As I said, many houses are difficult to heat and insulate, and people are having to pay an extra price before Christmas. The Government cannot just stand by on this matter. All hon. Members probably believe in some form of market forces, but in this case those forces are being used to drive up the cost of fuel unjustifiably. As I have said, weather conditions alone cannot justify what is happening because Northern Ireland has had some of the worst weather in this period, yet it has some of the cheapest fuel. We must ensure that constituents who use oil to heat their houses, wherever they live, pay a fair price for that fuel and are not held to ransom by either the oil companies or those who deliver the oil to houses.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I put on the record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for how it has handled today’s Adjournment debate in providing so many hon. Members with an opportunity to speak.
My remarks will focus on equality and diversity. We have had a diverse debate this afternoon, but I am confident that the Deputy Leader of the House will be more than equal to the challenge of pulling the issues together in his closing remarks. I fundamentally agree with much of what colleagues have said, but I must challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and say that every good Christmas pudding around the country will, of course, have Cornish clotted cream served with it.
Equality means something different to different people. Whether we are talking about equality of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, there is no such thing as being almost equal. There can be no grey areas. If hon. Members will forgive the pun, equality is a black and white issue; someone is either equal or they are not. There is no doubt that the Government need to do more work across all the subjects I mentioned. However, I would like to focus some thoughts on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.
As many hon. Members will know—indeed, it is something I put on the record during my maiden speech—I am proud to be an openly gay Member of Parliament. I firmly believe that hon. Members from all parties have a responsibility to champion equality both in the countries of the United Kingdom and abroad. Although the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of LGBT equality, the record of other countries around the world is not quite so rosy. In Gambia, sexual relations between men still carries a sentence of 14-years’ imprisonment. The sentence is 21 years in Kenya and 25 years in Ghana. In Tanzania, Barbados, Sierra Leone and Bangladesh, the sentence can be life in prison, and in Nigeria and Pakistan—among other countries—sexual relations between gay men can lead to state-sanctioned execution.
The United Kingdom needs to do more to stand up for equality around the world. Last week, I tabled an early-day motion expressing concern at a United Nations decision to remove a reference to sexual orientation from a resolution condemning arbitrary executions. Will the Deputy Leader of the House work with his colleagues to strengthen the Government’s commitment to using our influence to push other countries towards true equality, particularly in relation to revisiting that UN resolution?
More work also still needs to be done on the issue in Britain. Research from the Library shows that suicide rates within the LGBT community are shocking. It is estimated that around 9% of the population have at some point considered taking their own lives. In the LGBT community, that figure is more than 50%. Indeed, while only 2.5%—a figure that is, none the less, tragic—of the population attempt suicide, 29% of people in the LGBT community try to take their own lives.
It is clear from those statistics that more work needs to be done to reach out to people across this country and explain to them that it is okay to be who they are. That is why I was pleased that one of the first actions of the Minister for Equalities was to launch the new equalities strategy for Government. Part of this strategy is the first ever cross-government programme to support LGBT people, and that is very welcome. Indeed, the Government have recognised that there are specific issues that transgender people face, and I welcome the moves to develop the first Government action plan on transgender equality next year.
In many ways, these steps build on the visible and vocal support that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have given to the LGBT community, not least in the run-up to Pride London this year, when they hosted an event in Downing street. I was very pleased yesterday to attend the launch of a new parliamentary support network for LGBT people here in the Palace of Westminster—ParliOut. That is an important first step for this House and everybody who works here in ensuring that we are able to provide support to Members, researchers and everybody else who comes and goes from this place. Of all places, people should feel able to be themselves here.
However, there is still further to go. As many Members know, I am a keen supporter and proponent of equal marriage for same-sex couples. As Mr Speaker said yesterday evening at the launch of ParliOut, it was a groundbreaking moment when Parliament itself was granted a licence to hold civil partnerships and when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his partner were the first to benefit from that. However, it would have been much more groundbreaking for this House to enable full equal marriage for same-sex couples across the country—not necessarily a religious tie, unless that is what individuals and their faith groups choose, but crucially the same status and legal position as that of heterosexual married couples. I am delighted that Stonewall now supports this aim, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to mention the steps that the Government are taking to investigate it as an option and perhaps to introduce legislation before the end of this Parliament.
This week, Mr Deputy Speaker, saw your brave decision to reveal your own sexuality. I believe that that sends a hugely welcome and clear signal that this place has changed and that attitudes across the country are changing too. I would like to extend to you my best wishes and, I am sure, the best wishes of the whole House on that decision.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I am sure that in the season of good will the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the extraordinary, groundbreaking contribution of the Labour Government on this issue. He mentioned the problems of those in the transgender group. Can he focus a little on the particular problems of women who do not want to get divorced even after the change of their gender, and the problems that they have over pensions? We should have addressed that and still have to do so. Does he have any thoughts on that?
Stephen Gilbert
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It would be remiss of me not to remark on the huge progress that was made under the previous Government. She identifies an area where there is still work to be done and where we need to go further and faster. The call that I am making to the Deputy Leader of the House and to the Government is that we finish this job and deliver true equality to all citizens in the United Kingdom as quickly as we can.
There is no doubt that attitudes have changed in the country, and in many ways this place is now playing catch-up to those attitudes. For everybody who is out there still struggling to come to terms with their identity, we need to be absolutely clear that there are no second-class citizens in the United Kingdom and that as a country we are stronger because we are not all the same. I hope that over the coming years this Parliament will work to send out a clear signal that all of us are equal and all of us are entitled to live our lives free from fear and with the same opportunities and protections as each other.
As the last Back Bencher to speak today, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that that leaves me only to wish everybody a very merry Christmas and probably to turn off the light switch as I leave.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
But not before I have had a chance to try to respond to the debate.
The pre-recess Adjournment debate is one of the great parliamentary institutions, and I am very pleased that the Backbench Business Committee has decided to keep it going, albeit with a twist—a new format. I thank my ministerial colleagues for their contributions, especially those who are Ministers on the Treasury Bench but do not usually have the opportunity to speak from the Dispatch Box—the Assistant Whips. Members will have the opportunity to give feedback to the Backbench Business Committee and the Government on how the format has worked and on changes that they would like to see. I also thank the departmental clerks, who provide us with the information that we need to respond to hon. Members, and particularly those in the office of the Leader of the House and myself. We cannot answer everything, so some hon. Members will receive letters from Departments to deal with the details that they have raised.
I will start with the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). Oddly, the first and last speeches of this debate mirrored each other, because they spoke of human rights, gender equality and the equality prospectus. They underlined that equality is an important facet of domestic and foreign policy. The hon. Lady mentioned the Ashtiani case, and she knows that the Government have made vigorous representations to the Iranian Government on that matter. She also gave sobering statistics on gender balance in some developing countries, to which everyone should pay attention, as they suggest that there is more than just discrimination against female children in those areas. We must keep banging on at such issues. This country has a good history of developing human rights and the awareness of them, but we can never be complacent, either in our country or abroad.
That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). It is apposite that he should raise the issue today, because I gather that it is the fifth anniversary of civil partnerships in England and Wales. This is a timely reminder of the importance of the equality agenda. Like him, I pay tribute to Mr Speaker, to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all who were involved in the setting up of ParliOut. I hope that last night’s launch was the first of many successes that the group will enjoy. We need to put this issue at the heart of the coalition Government’s agenda. If we do not stand for equality, we do not stand for the basic human principles of decency. It is important that we do all that we can to make those principles a reality in this country. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer on civil partnerships, other than to say that the matter is being discussed actively by Home Office Ministers, as I think he knows. We hope to come to a conclusion soon.
I will deal with a couple of points that hon. Members raised about business. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), like me, has a small business background. It is of value for this House to have people who have worked in business, because they have contact with a world that often seems distant from politics. He made points about access to finance, red tape and scale problems—some things that work in large businesses are more difficult to achieve when there are a limited number of people in the work force. Those were extremely valuable points.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) concentrated on infrastructure demands, and the need for railway and road connections to his part of the world. In fact, East Anglia has done rather well out of this debate. He mentioned the Beccles bypass and the Brandon bypass in a neighbouring constituency. I am pleased that he also mentioned the need for high-speed internet, because that will be crucial in many rural areas. We always think about infrastructure in its physical manifestations, but the internet will increasingly be the most important thing that businesses need to compete successfully.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) made a very good case for the development of the Hitachi works in Newton Aycliffe. He knows that I cannot give him an answer on the decision that the Government will take, but he also knows that the matter is being actively considered and that there will be an announcement early in the new year. As someone who needs great western rolling stock, I will take a great interest in whether it is built in his constituency or elsewhere. He rightly made a strong case for his constituents and mentioned Hitachi’s good record in cold weather, which ought to be at the top of people’s priorities at the moment. I am grateful to him and will ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport hears what he has to say.
The hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) talked about how we create jobs, how we get people back into employment and the role of the voluntary sector, and he made extremely important points. He was rather sad that he did not have a race course in his constituency, although he said that he had Camelot there. I have to say that I have the original Camelot in my constituency, but we will let that pass.
We then heard a string of seasonally related speeches, starting with the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) making a strong case for winter tyres. I think that we now agree about exactly what we mean by winter tyres, which perhaps was not quite the case in the earlier exchanges between the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and the Secretary of State, who I think was talking about studded tyres and snow chains rather than the tyres that she suggests.
The hon. Lady clearly made a sensible point, and we know that the Secretary of State has started an assessment of whether we are likely to see these very bad weather conditions regularly, and what changes to legislation or practice are needed to adapt to them. He will clearly have to take her point into account. Of course there are other matters on which we can engage people in good practice, such as tyre tread depth and pressure, but she made a very good point, from her own experience and in the wider interests of her constituency, about what many people will see as a sensible option.
To continue the seasonal theme, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) made what I can only describe as a “bootiful” speech. She mentioned turkeys, which we associate with Norfolk, but I had not previously associated goats on the roof with Norfolk. She also mentioned the very good eating qualities of Norfolk apples, but I have to say that where the best ones come from depends on whether one thinks apples should be eaten or drunk.
The hon. Lady’s key point was that we do not say enough about the very good-quality produce that we produce in this country. We have superb brand names in our ancient counties. For instance, Norfolk has real associations with certain foods, as does Somerset. I am even prepared, despite the cream wars earlier, to accept that Devon and Cornwall have associations with good foods. I sometimes think that we do not make enough of those associations in marketing what we produce.
Still on the seasonal theme, I associate Boxing day with going to Wincanton races, and we heard two important contributions about the racing industry. I have heard of Newmarket, but Wincanton is obviously a very important race course, and some of the best trainers come from my constituency. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) mentioned Kauto Star, who was trained in my constituency. I had my picture taken with him a year or so ago, and he bit me, but he is a very good horse. I know that the hon. Gentleman unfortunately could not stay for the end of the debate, but he said that he was a jockey himself and that there was little demand for ageing politicians as jockeys. I seem to remember that my late friend Sir Clement Freud acted as a jockey very late in his political life, so all hope is not extinguished.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the future of racing, the effect of the levy and the diminishing value of the levy board contribution. We have got to get it right because racing is an important industry—it is not just the race courses, the trainers or the betting industry, but all those things put together, and all the downstream industries that connect with racing. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has met the levy board and the racing and betting industries to discuss how we can get the levy reformed or possibly replaced. I hope that the Government will shortly make the right decisions for the industry.
Let us move away from seasonal issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) initially raised the driver training centre at Trowbridge and said that he had campaigned on it. He may remember that, in the days when I could campaign about things in the House, I, too, campaigned for the retention of that centre, which served my constituency in Frome. I know that he knows that Ministers are considering the matter seriously, and I will pass on his comments. I can do no more than that from the Dispatch Box.
I will also pass on my hon. Friend’s determination for the railway service in Wiltshire to be improved, particularly that in Melksham, which is so appallingly served by the current franchise. The key will be the local authorities and the attitude of Wiltshire unitary authority in deciding whether they want to take that forward. I know that the Department will be keen to work with Wiltshire if it feels that that is the right way to ensure that the necessary rolling stock is available to operate a new service for the area.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised a difficult subject, which we ought to discuss more often. He did not like the word “contact”, so perhaps “parent time” is better, whereby parents who are separated can share quality time with their children. I think that he has rightly drawn attention to the deficiencies in some parts of the family law system. He knows that the Government are conducting a family justice review to consider the family justice system as a whole, and to ascertain particularly how we can support better arrangements. As he says, that time is sometimes the subject of contact orders, which are sparingly enforced. That is one of the difficulties. I suspect that the answer may well lie in more mediation and—if he does not mind my using a cant term—a holistic approach to the relationships between children and their parents, ensuring that matters are examined in the round in the legal system.
The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) discussed paying housing benefit directly to landlords. I am sure that he knows that we are widening local authority discretion to pay housing benefit directly to the landlords, if it will help customers secure a new tenancy or remain in their current home at a reduced rate. We are working closely with local authorities to ensure that the provisions are used in specific circumstances, when landlords reduce rents to an affordable level for customers. I am afraid that the Government do not intend to revert to the position whereby landlords demand direct payments as a condition of the tenancy because that was open to abuse, and we do not want to return to such a situation. Clearly, that will be examined with increasing closeness in the next little while to ensure that we have an effective system.
The hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) talked about the closure of the magistrates court in Woking. If I say that I have enormous fellow feeling for the hon. Gentleman, I hope that that will not be misinterpreted, but having seen the closure of Frome magistrates court and Trowbridge county court, which served my town of Frome and the surrounding area, I know exactly how he feels. He asked me for information about the rationale. I can tell him only what I have been supplied from the Ministry of Justice. Woking magistrates court is to close because utilisation of the courts in Surrey was only 72% and, taking a whole-area approach, Woking was the most sensible option for closure because, although it has good facilities and relatively high utilisation, if that work is absorbed by the remaining courts in Surrey—specifically, if work from Woking were transferred to Staines and Guildford magistrates court—the utilisation rate for magistrates courts in Surrey will increase from 72% to 89%. The Ministry of Justice also makes the point that all other magistrates courts in Surrey are co-located with a county court, which allows significant economies of scale, and centralisation of resources and types of work. He will want to ask the MOJ about those figures and argue his case further, which is of course his right, but that information might be helpful to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) raised the effect of domestic violence and the hugely important work of women’s refuges such as the Colchester and Tendring women’s refuge. In the House and elsewhere, people sometimes duck away from that, but it is important that we do not do so. I believe that he said that that refuge houses 120 women and 194 children, which is a significant contribution to welfare in his area. He was very much supported by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
My hon. Friend spelt out very clearly the social and economic value of such facilities. He spoke of the real contribution that that women’s refuge and others make—his views are shared by MPs in neighbouring constituencies. I hope that by putting those views on the record, he gives pause for thought to Essex county council, and that it considers carefully where its priorities lie in setting its budget for this and future years.
I should not be remotely surprised that my hon. Friend raised the issue of the armed forces, but I should like to add my voice to his in sending our very best wishes and grateful thanks to the members of the armed forces who are serving in Afghanistan. I wish them a peaceful—so far as is possible—and safe Christmas. We all look forward to their safe return in the new year. I hope the whole House agrees with that.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), aside from his advert for Devonshire produce, raised an issue that affects all in rural areas—the cost of fuel oil. I declare an interest, because my house is heated by fuel oil. Luckily, I have a fairly full tank at the moment, so I am feeling smug, but many are not because the price increases are substantial. I listened very carefully to what the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said on that. Fuel oil and liquefied petroleum gas both fall outside the current regulatory arrangements, but he is clearly considering whether more needs to be done. The message is simple. If consumers feel that they are being unfairly treated, they should raise their concerns with the Office of Fair Trading. We asked the OFT to monitor the situation, and I hope that people use that opportunity so that it gets a clear picture of what is happening.
Last but not least, we heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). A pre-Adjournment debate would not be complete without that—it is inimitable. In the space of just six minutes, he managed to mention the disability issues and sporting excellence of Joanna Cranfield; Mr West, who has problems with Equitable Life; his efforts on behalf of Steven Bristow, who has been in prison in Thailand for 27 years; Jackie Currie and the change in the status of prison visitors; Cherry Sholem and her child who has dyspraxia; and Ian Shirley, whose partner, Ida Hammond, has sadly passed away after suffering from dementia. He added Camp Ashraf to that and gave his best wishes to the ambassador to the Holy See on his retirement. His was a sterling performance, but I cannot answer all his points. I will ensure that those who need to hear them do so.
Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the staff of the House—particularly the Doorkeepers, and particularly Maxwell, who is retiring as a Doorkeeper after 17 years—very best wishes for Christmas and the new year. Yet again, it has been a delight to answer the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate, and I hope that I have answered at least some of the points that hon. Members have raised.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we move on to the next business and while some people are still here, on behalf of Mr Speaker, myself and the other Deputy Speakers, I wish all the staff of Parliament who keep it all going a merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy new year—from the cleaners to the cooks, from the Clerks to the contractors, and from MPs and their staff to Hansard and the journalists. More importantly, our thoughts and thanks go to the armed forces at this special time.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, consideration of any Lords Messages that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Robert Goodwill.)
Question agreed to.
Education Maintenance Allowance
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I present this petition after receiving a similar petition with more than 2,500 signatories.
The petition states:
The Petition of Liverpool Community College students and staff,
Declares that the petitioners oppose the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA); that the petitioners believe that the EMA helps thousands of young people to reach their full potential; that the petitioners believe that the loss of EMA will damage the country’s economic future and impact on social justice by making it harder for disadvantaged young people to access education; and that the petitioners believe that the abolition of the EMA will lead to cuts in local provision as colleges respond to reductions in learner numbers.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance and to continue supporting adult learners through the Adult Learning Grant.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000873]
Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for giving me the chance to raise with the Minister responsible for roads—especially when the prevailing weather conditions are occupying his thoughts at this difficult time—the vital need for a bypass around the village of Tintwistle and the surrounding area in my constituency. As the final parliamentary act of 2010, I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending this evening at a time when, like many of our colleagues, he would rather be heading off home to his family and his constituents.
The relative serenity in the Chamber tonight is something that many of my constituents living adjacent to the A57 and A628 in Glossop and Tintwistle crave. Every day, about 36,000 commuting cars and heavy lorries drive through the two places, creating severe traffic jams and pollution on those two trunk roads. They are also ruining some stunning local landscapes and shaking parts of the village of Tintwistle to their very foundations. This is also having a knock-on effect as the congestion forces many other vehicles on to small back roads through tiny villages such as Charlesworth, pushing congestion and traffic dangers into a wider area.
When I made my maiden speech, on 8 June this year, I stressed the urgent need for this scheme. I recognised then that money is tight and will be for some time, but subsequently I have had the Prime Minister’s assurance that some £30 billion is still available for transport investment, which means that there will be schemes that can go ahead. I hope to get the Minister to see that this scheme should be one that gets the green light.
The need for a bypass is not new. When researching for this debate, I found a parliamentary question answered in 1962. The then Minister’s response informed the House that a scheme for the improvement of this road was included in the five-year trunk roads programme, so for almost 50 years my constituents have been given such promises. For almost 50 years, they have put up with the congestion and the rumbling of around 4,000 heavy goods vehicles a day pounding through their villages and past their schools. For almost 50 years, they have been told yes, but not now—later.
The need for this bypass is older than I am. My aim tonight is to convince the Minister not that Tintwistle and Glossop need a bypass—as I will explain, that case has been made already. Instead, I hope to convince him that they have a compelling case for being one of the sites to be developed during this round of spending. If I cannot get him to agree to that tonight, I will look to him to confirm at the very least that he will agree to come and see the need for himself. He could, of course, take the quick and easy option and simply give the scheme the go ahead today—after all, it is Christmas, and miracles have happened at Christmas before.
If the Minister is in need of further persuasion, however, and agrees to come to my constituency, he will see why the Highways Agency is so convinced that a bypass is the only way forward. The status quo is untenable and detrimental not only to local communities but to the local and regional economy. The plans for a bypass in the area date back to the 1990s, following publication of the 1989 “Roads for Prosperity” White Paper. A route was chosen in October 1993, but then plans were put on hold in 1996, when the national road building programme was revised.
Ministers from several administrations have visited High Peak, and seen the beauty of the area and how it, and the lives of the people who live there, were being badly affected by the constant stream of traffic. They each recognised the importance of such a scheme, although gaining support from the top has not guaranteed action. I understand that one Minister made the journey, promised that something would be done, but was sacked on his journey back to London. According to Lord Pendry, the former Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, the former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), visited the area and tried to cross Manchester road to attend a meeting at the then Tintwistle parish council offices, whereupon she narrowly escaped being knocked down by a truck.
Unsurprisingly, that proved to be a persuasive argument, and in 1998 the Labour Government published “A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England”, which included the bypass. Then, however, more difficult arguments started to emerge as the preferred route for a bypass became an issue. The new road entered the Peak District national park, whose representatives naturally raised concerns. However, many objections were also raised by people who were not familiar with the area and assumed that all of the new bypass would be in the park. The Highways Agency’s submission to the regional planning bodies in November 2002 concluded that there was no realistic alternative to a bypass if we are to solve the problems that exist.
A public inquiry was convened in June 2007, but was adjourned indefinitely in 2008, after the Highways Agency admitted that it had submitted incorrect data. Later that year, the scheme was officially abandoned because the cost of undertaking the project had escalated and funds had been redirected to other areas. Some £20 million had been spent on investigations at this point—an utter waste of public money spent raising and then dashing the hopes of local people that the misery they endured daily had an end in sight. Indeed, I believe that the Minister tabled questions on this subject in the previous Parliament. So, with £20 million already spent and almost 50 years of acceptance that the route is a problem and that something needs to be done, the sad story that is the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass, like the traffic through the villages, rumbles on.
The problems that a bypass is needed to address can be clearly identified, and I will take a few moments to outline them. Many will recognise part of the A57 by another name—the snake pass. Particularly with the snow at the moment, it is often mentioned on the radio. It is the name given to the higher reaches of the road that are notoriously dangerous because they snake across the Pennines. This route, which takes motorists from the M67, through the centre of Glossop and on to Sheffield, is one of the busiest A roads in the country. Linking Greater Manchester with Sheffield and south Yorkshire, the road passes through Glossop, where there are numerous junctions and pelican crossings, which cause long delays for traffic, especially where on-street parking makes the road narrow, causing great disruption to the flow of the massive level of traffic trying to get through the town.
The congestion created in Glossop is not only causing misery for motorists and residents alike, but is now having a detrimental effect on the economy of this famous old town. My constituent, Gareth Lewis, of Online Selling Ltd, tells me that the congestion
“has stopped our business clients coming to visit us”,
which causes his company to hold client meetings as far away as Manchester airport in an attempt to avoid the jams. Mr Lewis goes on to ask what the point is of taking office space in Glossop when his clients refuse to visit due to the congestion. In my work with Glossopdale businesses before and since I was elected, this has become an all-too-familiar story.
The second major road that would be relieved by a bypass is the A628, which is also known by another name—Woodhead road. It is of particular concern to my constituents from the small village of Tintwistle, which, together with neighbouring Mottram, in a neighbouring constituency, gives the bypass its name. Tintwistle is a small Derbyshire village, which, if it were a typical small Derbyshire village, would be quiet and peaceful, but it is not. The village shakes and shudders, as wagon after wagon and car after car trundle through relentlessly. Another of my constituents—a resident of Tintwistle called Anthony Hall—wrote to me only last month to tell me that he had
“counted over 50 HGVs rumble past my home in the last half hour.”
Many houses in Tintwistle are only a yard from the side of the road—or, from their frontages. What Mr Hall described is not something that I would wish to tolerate. I am sure that it is not something that the Minister would wish to tolerate, and it is not something that I wish my constituents to tolerate for much longer either.
Although I do not wish to give the Minister an exhaustive account of each and every bend of the A628—unless forcing him to beg for mercy would help my case—while I have his ear, let me point out that the eastern end of the A628, through the village of Dodworth, has already enjoyed significant investment and road improvements. My constituents deserve the same concern, the same action and the same relief from their ongoing nightmare. Time and again, they have been told that the case for the bypass has been made. Time and again, they have been told that their misery will come to an end, that funds have been set aside and that work will start. Time and again, programmes have been redrawn, money has been diverted and bureaucracy has got in the way, and still the villages tremble at the freight vehicles thundering through, choking our businesses to the point that they cannot function.
The bypass would relieve not one but two major roads connecting the west of the country to the east. It would provide relief not for one, but for numerous small villages, both along the route and beyond, and would make existing roads immeasurably safer. I know that there are environmental questions that will doubtless be asked, but as I watch stationary cars and wagons belching out exhaust fumes in Glossop, Tintwistle and beyond, I am convinced that this can only be worse than having free-flowing traffic. My constituents have suffered too long and too much. That is why, as a fitting end to my first year in this House, I have asked to bring the issue before Parliament this evening. It would be a merry Christmas indeed for my local residents if we were able to make some progress tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate, and on providing an opportunity for the House to debate funding for highways and, specifically, the bypass that he so keenly wants for Tintwistle. This is an issue on which he has already made representations to me, and on which he clearly sets a high priority. His constituents can take comfort from the fact that he is actively championing their cause here in the House.
Let me preface my remarks by referring to the recent statements by both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor, and the related documents, which have been placed in the Library, on investment in strategic highways, and local major transport schemes. As the Chancellor stated in the October spending review announcement, the Government are determined to invest in Britain’s long-term economic growth, through areas such as transport, science and green energy, as these will help to ensure that the economy is broadly based and less susceptible to failures in one sector. It is for that reason that transport spending has been prioritised as one of the main areas of capital investment over the next four years. On 26 October, the Transport Secretary was able to announce his plans for investment in strategic and local roads. On the strategic road network, he was able to commit to completing the eight major road schemes currently under construction by 2015, at a total cost of £900 million, as well as a further £1.4 billion to fund new strategic schemes between now and 2015.
In addition to that, we are able to provide more than £1.5 billion for local authority major schemes over the same period. Around £600 million of that is for schemes that are already under construction or that have conditional approval, including two schemes that will provide some benefit to the area in question, namely the £120.9 million Metrolink extensions from Chorlton to East Didsbury, and from Droylsden to Ashton, and the £40.5 million Greater Manchester retaining walls maintenance scheme. On top of that, we are committed nationally to a further £900 million of investment for new local authority major schemes. Taken together, that level of investment is greater than the average Department for Transport spend on local authority major schemes over the last 10 years.
In taking our decisions, we have looked carefully at the value for money offered by schemes, their strategic value—whether for local, regional or national journeys—and the degree of development and certainty of deliverability, as well as important non-monetised impacts including, of course, environmental impact. As a result of this prioritisation exercise, we are satisfied that we have chosen the most appropriate strategic schemes to start between now and 2015, subject to the reviews announced by the Transport Secretary. Although we are committed to significant investment in local major schemes as well as schemes on the strategic road network, it is inevitable that we have had to prioritise and make some hard decisions to select those schemes that offer the best value for investment.
I shall turn now to the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised tonight. He has made a number of points about the long-standing ambitions to develop road solutions in Tintwistle and the surrounding area. As I have mentioned, he and other local MPs have already contacted me to ask why a scheme to deal with this problem was not prioritised as part of the spending review. The reason, as the Transport Secretary explained on 26 October, is that a fundamental requirement used to decide whether a scheme would be considered for funding, when spending review decisions were being made earlier this year, was that the Department needed to have received a business case before 10 June 2010, the date on which the Transport Secretary announced the suspension of all scheme work pending the outcome of the spending review. Given that no agreed solution has yet been proposed for Tintwistle and the surrounding area, we simply do not have a scheme sufficiently worked out that could be considered for funding.
It is also clear that, despite our considerable investment, the number of the schemes prioritised under the previous system of regional funding allocations is no longer affordable, and we are having to do our best to rationalise the programme. That is why the spending review reconfirmed that the 29 schemes with full approval, many of which are already under construction, would go ahead. In addition, three schemes have conditional approval, and we have placed a further 10 schemes in the supported pool and 22 schemes in the development pool. There are a further 34 schemes in the pre-qualification pool.
I should make it plain to my hon. Friend that the problem that we inherited—apart from the appalling financial situation, with which he is doubtless familiar—was a complete over-promise by the previous Administration of what could sensibly be delivered. They left us with an enormous pipeline of schemes all over the country, which, even if the economy had been working to its best effect, could not have been delivered within the available resources. They led many Members and individuals up the garden path, because they simply could not deliver on their promises.
The Secretary of State therefore had to bring the portcullis down, if I can put it in those terms, on 10 June, and to consider, in the light of the moneys available, which schemes had got past a certain point. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend’s scheme had not got past that point on 10 June, for reasons with which he is familiar. So what happened was not a commentary on the value of his proposal; it was simply a recognition of how far the scheme had progressed through the pipeline by that point. That is why we are in this position now. I strongly regret that people across the country were led up the garden path by the previous Government and led to expect something that simply could not be delivered.
We have protected the transport budget significantly in the spending review, and the Department for Transport has done very well on capital projects because the Government recognise the value of investment in them. Even with that good settlement, however, the enormous pipeline of schemes that we inherited simply could not be delivered. I am very sorry for my hon. Friend’s constituents, who have had to wait 50 years for a solution to this problem, and I fear that I shall have to disappoint him again tonight. I understand the issues that he has raised, however, and he is quite right to do so.
I fully appreciate that there is a long and complicated history to the particular problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area, stretching back many years, with strong views for and against any proposals. More recently, a full bypass of Mottram, Hollingsworth and Tintwistle was identified by the Highways Agency as a means of addressing the disturbance from high volumes of traffic on those sections of the A57 and A628. A local authority scheme known as the Glossop spur was also promoted by Tameside metropolitan borough council and Derbyshire county council to provide a link to Glossop from the proposed bypass. It was dependent on the Highways Agency scheme being constructed.
A public inquiry commenced in June 2007, but in September 2007 errors were found in the Highways Agency traffic model on which the evidence for the scheme was based. That was clearly very unfortunate. Pending production of revised traffic forecasts incorporating new national traffic growth forecasts, the inquiry was adjourned in December 2007.
In July of the following year, revised cost estimates were produced which showed the central scheme cost estimate rising to some £270 million, with a potential maximum cost of some £315 million. That made the scheme unaffordable under the proposed timetable. It was deferred by four years until 2016-17 in the north-west regional funding advice programme, with the Glossop spur development consequently also deferred until 2017-18.
The delays led the Highways Agency to recommend to the then Secretary of State in March 2009 that it should withdraw from the public inquiry, and that recommendation was accepted. The scheme was subsequently removed from the Highways Agency’s programme to allow regional partners to undertake further consideration of the most appropriate scope of future work to solve the transport problems in the area. I am afraid that there are currently no plans to reinstate the Highways Agency scheme in the programme, but the agency continues to monitor conditions on the A57 and A628, and will invest in its future maintenance in line with its established approach for safe roads.
I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration at the ongoing difficulties experienced on that section of the network, but it is now for the parties to consider the options in the current funding environment. Let me put that in context. The total contribution requested from the Department for Transport for new major local authority schemes that we are considering in the current spending review period—after the coming down of the June 2010 portcullis—is £1.7 billion, nearly double the available finance of £900 million for such schemes. We are trying to reduce the ratio through improved funding offers from promoters and through sifting of schemes, but it means that at present we cannot consider schemes other than those already announced for the current spending review period, or accept any new bids for schemes that were not prioritised in the last Government’s regional funding allocations process.
I want to view the future constructively. We intend to work in partnership with local communities to develop a new framework for the funding of major local transport schemes over time. We want it to involve a reduced role for central Government and give a proper voice to locally elected representatives and business interests, with local enterprise partnerships—individually or in consortiums—playing a role in strategic investment choices in functional economic areas. In that context, we intend to enable local communities to identify and invest in what they consider to be their priorities in the next spending review period. So one possible avenue is central Government funding after 2015, if the present arrangement continues; another is the creation of LEPs which will be able to influence local priorities.
However, other avenues might be explored. They could include tax increment funding, details of which will be announced in due course, and the local sustainable transport fund, for which I am responsible and details of which I announced recently. Although the LSTF is not designed to support the cost of a full major scheme, it would potentially fund a package of complementary measures to support economic growth and reduce carbon. For parts of the route, Greater Manchester might choose to look to its own resources through the transport fund that it has created for a possible solution, particularly if it can free up resources as a result of successful bids to the regional growth fund or the LSTF for other projects. There could be a knock-on effect.
I understand that earlier this year Tameside metropolitan borough council, together with the Government office for the north-west, led a study group which included the Highways Agency and Greater Manchester to steer the development of an alternative integrated package of options, mainly in the Longdendale area, known as the Longdendale integrated transport strategy. I imagine that my hon. Friend is familiar with it. I understand that Tameside has since consulted on a list of options including new and improved railway stations—I must confess that, having looked at the map, I am not sure where they would be, but perhaps my hon. Friend knows—a short bypass of Mottram together with a revised Glossop spur, and innovative new treatments for the existing trunk road including new junctions, bus lanes and reduced speeds.
Andrew Bingham
My hon. Friend is right about the smaller scheme, but Tameside council designed it without consulting High Peak, and many of its proposals were not in its gift because they required the consent of the Highways Agency and Derbyshire county council. In my view—I was and still am a councillor, and of course am now the local Member of Parliament—it did nothing for High Peak, nothing for Tintwistle, and nothing for Hadfield. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the general scheme of things and I understand the position, but the proposal that was advanced earlier in the year did not strike me as beneficial to my constituency in any way.
Norman Baker
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am sorry that that is the analysis locally of the proposals put forward in the transport strategy. I was trying to find some crumbs of comfort for him in a difficult situation.
I understand that no final recommendations have been identified or proposed for that strategy, but Tameside council tells me that it intends to publish early in the new year the results of the consultation exercise which it thinks has been carried out. I understand that before the spending review, Greater Manchester authorities had also identified £100 million to fund the agreed outcome of the strategy, but that relied on a significant contribution from the regional funding allocation budget, which no longer exists. It is up to the Greater Manchester authorities whether they wish to proceed with their own funding for that.
For the future, any new scheme to deal with the traffic problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area will have to meet the challenge laid down by the Secretary of State in his October statement to compete for finite resources against other projects in future spending rounds. Serious consideration needs to be given to how schemes can be delivered more efficiently and economically—in other words, to get the cost down and the cost-benefit ratio up—particularly where greater access is possible to alternative sources of funding, including the private sector.
I fully understand my hon. Friend’s desire to see a positive decision on the funding for a solution to the transport problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area. However, I hope he will acknowledge that the Government have had to make some difficult decisions on the best use of the funding available for an unrealistically large number of competing projects. It will now be important to look at how schemes can be made more cost-effective, and to identify new funding sources and systems for funding. Although I will continue to consider any future proposals for dealing with the transport problems in the area, I am afraid that I can offer no particular assurances at this stage regarding the future availability of funding for such proposals.
My hon. Friend asked whether I would come and visit his constituency. I do not wish to raise false hopes, for the reasons that I have given tonight, but if he wants me to come and visit, I am happy to do so and look at the problems first hand. I cannot give him a Christmas present of a bypass, but I can give him a Christmas present of a visit, although the precedent that he mentioned when a previous Minister went up there and got sacked on the way back does not encourage such a visit.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act 2010
Identity Documents Act 2010
Loans to Ireland Act 2010.
Ministerial Corrections
Justice
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ainsworth
24. To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of those serving a prison sentence have been treated for heroin addiction.
[Official Report, 23 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 287W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Nick Herbert:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) on 23 November 2010. Unfortunately, the answer contained an error relating to the number of heroin users (4,933) that have entered accredited drug treatment programmes in 2009-10. The full answer given was as follows:
Nick Herbert
Of those adults remanded or sentenced in 2009-10, 60,067 had clinical interventions for the management of heroin dependence, and 4,933 heroin users entered accredited drug treatment programmes in custody in the same period.
The correct answer should have been:
Nick Herbert
Of those adults remanded or sentenced in 2009-10, 60,067 had clinical interventions for the management of heroin dependence, and 4,633 heroin users entered accredited drug treatment programmes in custody in the same period.
National Probation Service: Manpower
Lisa Nandy
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many probation service employees of each grade there were in probation areas on 31 December (a) 2006, (b) 2007, (c) 2008 and (d) 2009; and if he will make a statement.
[Official Report, 25 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 456-58W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on 25 November 2010. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the locally purchased extract tool not extracting all of the staff in post figures; in Teesside it excluded one team; in Durham it did not identify when hours of work, and therefore full-time equivalence (FTE), had changed slightly. Therefore, some of the staff in post figures provided for Teesside and Durham within the national figures for December 2009 were incorrect. The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Blunt
The staff in post figures for the probation service by job group at 31 December 2006-2009 are shown in the following table.
The table shows that there was an overall decrease in staff in post over the period of 1,339.26 FTE (down 6.3%).
Job group | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Area/District Manager | 174.39 | 185.60 | 198.74 | 160.78 |
Assistant Chief Officer | 306.50 | 300.68 | 269.38 | 281.66 |
Chief Officer | 42.00 | 42.00 | 42.00 | 42.00 |
Deputy Chief Officer | 80.35 | 72.17 | 53.50 | 42.81 |
Middle Manager | 1,616.55 | 1,596.22 | 1,799.58 | 1,716.61 |
Other operational staff | 618.19 | 615.76 | 711.82 | 692.14 |
Other staff | 175.12 | 114.57 | 191.84 | 234.08 |
Practice Development Assessor | 192.35 | 171.89 | 174.61 | 104.16 |
Probation Officer | 5,398.88 | 5,368.16 | 5,363.77 | 5,318.87 |
Probation Services Officer | 6,326.01 | 6,060.30 | 5,609.96 | 5,583.13 |
Psychologist | 27.50 | 17.20 | 20.04 | 15.02 |
Senior practitioner | 286.77 | 258.05 | 220.02 | 183.08 |
Support staff—administration | 4,564.31 | 4,494.75 | 4,643.23 | 4,342.34 |
Support staff—other | 251.27 | 297.54 | 749.43 | 728.33 |
Trainee Probation Officer | 1,134.09 | 1,138.00 | 903.04 | 402.90 |
Treatment Manager | 176.70 | 161.47 | 186.71 | 177.99 |
Not recorded | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 5.82 |
Sum | 21,370.98 | 20,894.36 | 21,139.67 | 20,031.72 |
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Blunt
The staff in post figures for the probation service by job group at 31 December 2006-09 are shown in the following table.
The table shows that there was an overall decrease in staff in post over the period of 1,315.99 FTE (down 6.2%).
Job group | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Area/District Manager | 174.39 | 185.60 | 198.74 | 160.78 |
Assistant Chief Officer | 306.50 | 300.68 | 269.38 | 281.66 |
Chief Officer | 42.00 | 42.00 | 42.00 | 42.00 |
Deputy Chief Officer | 80.35 | 72.17 | 53.50 | 42.81 |
Middle Manager | 1,616.55 | 1,596.22 | 1,799.58 | 1,718.81 |
Other operational staff | 618.19 | 615.76 | 711.82 | 694.14 |
Other staff | 175.12 | 114.57 | 191.84 | 234.08 |
Practice Development Assessor | 192.35 | 171.89 | 174.61 | 104.16 |
Probation Officer | 5,398.88 | 5,368.16 | 5,363.77 | 5,322.06 |
Probation Services Officer | 6,326.01 | 6,060.30 | 5,609.96 | 5,595.20 |
Psychologist | 27.50 | 17.20 | 20.04 | 15.02 |
Senior practitioner | 286.77 | 258.05 | 220.02 | 183.08 |
Support staff—administration | 4,564.31 | 4,494.75 | 4,643.23 | 4,345.15 |
Support staff—other | 251.27 | 297.54 | 749.43 | 729.33 |
Trainee Probation Officer | 1,134.09 | 1,138.00 | 903.04 | 402.90 |
Treatment Manager | 176.70 | 161.47 | 186.71 | 177.99 |
Not recorded | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 5.82 |
Sum | 21,370.98 | 20,894.36 | 21,139.67 | 20,054.99 |
International Development
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment he has made of (a) the food security situation in Western Sahara and (b) the implication for food security in that country of the arrival of recent settlers;
Mr O'Brien
The Department for International Development (DFID) does not have a bilateral aid programme in Western Sahara and has not provided direct emergency funds to the country in the last five years. We support Western Sahara through our share of the budget of the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO). ECHO has provided €133 million in humanitarian aid to Western Sahara since it was established. DFID monitors all humanitarian situations on an ongoing basis.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr O'Brien
The Department for International Development (DFID) does not have a bilateral aid programme in Western Sahara and has not provided direct emergency funds to the country in the last five years. We support Western Sahara through our share of the budget of the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO). ECHO has provided €165 million in humanitarian aid since it was established. DFID monitors all humanitarian situations on an ongoing basis.
Bus Fares (Bristol, Bath and surrounding areas)
Westminster Hall
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
Local High Streets
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
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to introduce the debate. I am very grateful to the hon. Members who have turned up for braving the snow and ice to be here on the final day of the parliamentary term.
The debate is on an extremely important subject, which I believe hon. Members and the public will welcome the opportunity to discuss. There is barely a constituency in the country that does not contain a local high street of sorts, whether it be in a village, town or city, rural community or urban area. Our high streets are the beating hearts of our local communities. They are the vital hubs where essential services are located and where people meet for both business and recreation. The small shops based in those centres are often run by hard-working, small, independent businesses that employ local staff who provide a really personal service to their communities, and ensure at the same time that money is spent and therefore kept within the local economy.
In recent years, there has been a great deal of focus on the decline of local high streets. In many communities, independent retailers have come under threat. They have faced a rising burden of regulation and tax, a daily battle against crime and violence, and competition from the growth of out-of-town shopping centres. It has been estimated that in 2009 alone, 12,000 independent shops closed. Throughout the country, one does not have to look far to witness the sad sight of rows of empty high street stores, either boarded up or left vacant for months on end.
In Kingswood, my constituency, the situation is no different. For many years, local people—constituents whom I meet on the doorstep and at my surgeries—have been concerned that Kingswood high street, although still a great place to shop that features fantastic local stores, could be improved and given a better chance to stand up against out-of-town shopping centres to become once again the beacon of the Kingswood community. Local people have told me that for too long, Kingswood seemed to have been forgotten by politicians or those in authority, and that allowing local high streets to fall into disrepair sends a message that we do not care about our local community. I am determined that in Kingswood that will change. As the new local MP, I pledged that for the first time in 18 years, Kingswood would have its own MP’s office based in Kingswood, on the high street. That is not merely a token symbol; it is testament to my commitment to make Kingswood a better place to live and work, to invest in our local area.
That is one of the reasons why I called for the debate: I believe that many of the issues we face in Kingswood are exactly the same issues that need to be resolved at national level through Government action and legislation passed here in Parliament. It is here that we can give local people and local communities, in Kingswood and elsewhere, the opportunity to influence and shape the destiny of local high streets. Indeed, we must do so. After all, local high streets are the backbones of our local communities. A thriving high street points to a thriving community, but it must be the community that is at the centre of deciding the future of its local high street.
In discussing the regeneration of local high streets, I do not want to suggest that Kingswood high street is in a state of disrepair or that we are witnessing the so-called death of the local high street, left to rot, supposedly, by the increasing development of out-of-town shopping centres and malls. I merely want to discuss what we can do to make it a better place; I want us to discuss among ourselves what we can learn from one another’s experiences in different local areas about what works.
In many ways, Kingswood high street has all the ingredients to thrive and to restore its former glory. The Kings Chase shopping centre has done excellent work in restoring the fabric of the covered shopping area, while the introduction of a new Boswells café is a welcome move that will no doubt increase footfall. However, it is the recent establishment of the Kingswood Business Association that I believe gives greatest hope to the area. Working tirelessly to promote Kingswood, the business association is working with South Gloucestershire council to make Kingswood high street as vibrant a place as any.
The association is in the middle of carrying out a health checker exercise, asking what are the current and future needs of businesses in the local area in order to make Kingswood a sustainable place to work and shop. On the basis of that understanding of what is needed to maintain the vitality of Kingswood high street, the Kingswood Business Association is proactively seeking tenants to fill empty units—businesses that will particularly help to complement existing ones. Tackling the early symptoms of degeneration ensures that local businesses have an important steer on the future direction of their high street, taking responsibility for their local area. I welcome the recent launch of the “Healthy High Street?” guide by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), to promote at a wider, national level the good practice that is already taking place in Kingswood.
The Kingswood Business Association has also recognised that there are many ways in which the high street can be promoted for little cost, by organising community events that can bring local people into the area to see what they are missing. This year, for instance, the Armed Forces day celebration, with veterans marching side by side down Kingswood high street, was a great success. Stalwart organisations such as the Friends of Kingswood Park and other leading champions of Kingswood such as Diane Block and George Kousouros should be given credit for all the hard work that they have put in over the years to make such events a success.
As the local MP, I am hoping next year to make Kingswood high street the focus for community celebrations once again. This time, I want to make Kingswood the place to celebrate St George’s day, and I am currently working to organise a parade along the high street to mark it. Local high streets can be the perfect place to celebrate such events—events that, although simple, are effective, helping to bring people together and getting local businesses talking to one another.
However, sustaining a local high street and a community cannot just be about organising events or shopping locally at independent small shops. We need to act as a Government to provide the breaks necessary for independent small businesses to thrive. Rate relief helps to keep financially afloat many small businesses on local high streets, yet at the same time many small businesses do not take up or even know about small business rate relief and consequently pay money that they do not need to pay to local authorities.
After the Federation of Small Businesses began a campaign for rate relief to be applied automatically, rather than businesses going through the bureaucratic process of applying for it, automatic small business rate relief was introduced in Northern Ireland. It has injected more than £8 million into the local economy and benefited 16,000 small businesses. It is to be welcomed that the Localism Bill now proposes to allow small business rate relief to be paid automatically to eligible small businesses. South Gloucestershire council made a submission under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 for automatic small business rate relief and is extremely pleased to see Ministers acting on that proposal.
I welcome the commitment in the local growth White Paper to double small business rate relief for one year from October; eligible ratepayers with rateable values below £6,000 will pay no rates at all for that year. It is also welcome that the Government are committed to taking legislation through the House to ensure that no new supplementary business rate can be imposed without the backing of local firms in a referendum. I particularly welcome the consideration of the possibility of giving local authorities wide-ranging discretionary powers to grant business rate discounts, so that they can respond to local circumstances by reducing business rate bills. In Kingswood, that might provide the opportunity for the high street to become an enterprise growth zone, offering local businesses and retail organisations the opportunity to invest in Kingswood with the reward of lower rates, creating our very own enterprise zone.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that those ideas for rate discounts would be very interesting to food businesses, and particularly to traditional food businesses such as grocers, bakers and butchers, which often have quite tight margins and can struggle if they are in a particularly highly rated area?
Chris Skidmore
That is an extremely interesting point. I had not considered it, but obviously there are many shops on the high street of that nature, so such a measure would indeed be extremely valuable.
Equally promising is the £1 billion of Government funding that has been set aside for councils that welcome new housing development. They will be able to spend it to benefit their local economy. In Kingswood, there are areas of brownfield land in need of development. At the same time, there is a great need for more affordable housing in the area. The new homes bonus—the Government’s proposal to match the council tax raised from the construction of new homes, supplemented by £350 per home for the first six years—will provide the opportunity for even greater investment in Kingswood, which might be spent on improving the local high street and its surrounding areas.
Increased investment and financial incentives are vital to protecting our local high streets, but we must also address the imbalance between our historic high streets and the growth of larger out-of-town retail centres or malls. It is there that we have the chance to learn the lessons of the past, and not to penalise small businesses in favour of larger retail outlets. I welcome the change in attitude displayed in the coalition’s programme for government, which states that it
“will seek to ensure a level playing field between small and large retailers by enabling councils to take competition”—
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the Mayor of London’s Great Outdoors programme has been particularly successful? My constituency has been lucky enough to benefit from the programme; Orpington was beset by structural decline for many years, with Bluewater a few miles down the road on one side and a great shopping centre in Bromley on the other. In July this year, Orpington was lucky enough to benefit from a £2.2 million regeneration programme.
Joseph Johnson
The programme was one of 50 projects that the Great Outdoors programme has used to regenerate outdoor spaces and urban centres across the region.
Chris Skidmore
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Mayor is a great visionary, and we can learn a lot from many of the ideas that he has proposed so far during his tenure.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
On the question of a level playing field, does my hon. Friend agree that there is merit in the Government’s making a detailed study of the challenges for smaller businesses compared with multiples?
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. I do not want to put across a message that we are anti-supermarket or anti-big business. This is about striking an appropriate balance between the two, and ensuring that small businesses are protected while at the same time ensuring that people in every constituency have choice—as they must.
I welcome the change in attitude displayed in the Government’s programme, which will seek to ensure a level playing field
“by enabling councils to take competition issues into account when drawing up their local plans to shape the direction and type of…retail development.”
In Kingswood, South Gloucestershire council has taken that message on board and made special provision for town centres and local high streets in its core strategy. It was also heartening to read the speech made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 2 November at the Heart of the Community conference, when my right hon. Friend stated
“we continue to support the ‘town-centres first’ policy, after all, a Conservative Government introduced it in 1996.”
That is something that the Conservative party, for one, has long campaigned on, and I look forward to hearing how the coalition Government will ensure that it takes place.
Above all, I welcome the local growth White Paper, which sets out the Government‘s economic ambition to build a fairer and more balanced economy driven by private sector growth within local communities. Indeed, it set out their commitment and belief that viable town centres are also key drivers of our economy. That can only benefit our local high streets, in particular by reforming the planning system so that it is driven by communities who want growth, rather than applying the system we inherited, which stifles development and innovation, and acts as a barrier to economic recovery.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In my local authority, several years ago Crawley borough council and West Sussex county council worked closely together to regenerate the high street. There is another thoroughfare—The Boulevard—in my local authority area, which the local councils are now looking to redevelop. With the local growth White Paper, and the localisation of planning policies that the coalition Government are introducing, is it not the case that local councils will be even more successful in achieving such things?
Chris Skidmore
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who did a tremendous job during his tenure at West Sussex county council. I hope the Government can take forward some of that work and learn from what he implemented in West Sussex.
By introducing a presumption in favour of sustainable economic development—it must be sustainable—and introducing a new right for communities to shape their local areas through neighbourhood plans, we are providing the seedbed in which local businesses will be able to flourish and expand. It is about ensuring that the high street and the people who live in a community have a viable, sustainable economic future. Parking, transport, procurement, and the threat from supermarkets and out-of-town developments are all best dealt with by local authorities, local community groups, local businesses and local people working together. Allowing local people the chance to get involved in the planning process is crucial if we are to improve decision making. Local problems, I believe, are always best solved at local level.
Many planning decisions involve the introduction of new buildings, yet we must not forget that the nature of many local high streets—historic landmarks in our towns and cities—means that they contain historic buildings in need of constant preservation. All too often, the presentation of local high streets is judged on the condition of those buildings and their quality of repair. It is vital that such buildings—many grade listed— be maintained and kept in the best condition possible. On Kingswood high street, the local Royal British Legion club has recognised that, and spent tens of thousands of pounds on repairing and cleaning the outside of the building, which is one of Kingswood’s landmarks. That has restored the building to its former glory and done much to improve the look of Kingswood high street; the members of the Legion should be thanked for all their efforts, which have made a real difference.
Sadly, not all buildings in Kingswood are fortunate enough to have been looked after so well. Just off Kingswood high street is Whitfield’s tabernacle, a famous grade I listed building, which, together with its nearby chapel and grounds, has fallen into a tragic state of disrepair. For years, despite great public concern, the building has been allowed to crumble and its grounds become overgrown. As the new local MP, I am unwilling to allow this blight on the Kingswood landscape, so close to the high street, to be tolerated. Recently, I organised a joint meeting with South Gloucestershire council, English Heritage and the current owners to drive the restoration of the historic site. English Heritage has now committed £48,000 to urgent repair works on the tabernacle, and I will continue discussions with all relevant parties until we reach a workable solution.
Although the tabernacle project is once again moving, there are other derelict buildings near Kingswood high street or in its vicinity that I am campaigning to see restored or improved. The former Linden hotel is such a building, and I am determined to see it improved. Over the years, like the tabernacle, the building has fallen into disrepair. It is all too easy to sit back and allow that to happen, but much harder to stand up and do something about it. As local MPs, we must begin to tackle such problems if we are genuinely to stand up for our local areas. Such local buildings should never have been allowed to fall into such a state; but I am not here to challenge the past, only to champion the future.
Damian Collins
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the role of landlords, particularly those with premises in town centres? The level of dilapidation of some of the retail stock in town centres is such that market forces alone would struggle to regenerate some areas.
Chris Skidmore
I agree that it is difficult, and landlords can often be recalcitrant in a difficult market when dealing with some of those problems. However, we need to push further to ensure that historic high streets and buildings in need of protection are regenerated where necessary. I am a strong champion of looking after those buildings.
We must have pride in our buildings and local areas if we are to have pride in our local communities. The Sun’s recent campaign to save the British high street has pointed out that sense of pride. We need to make our high streets more attractive places in which to shop. That can be achieved in a variety of ways, and often at low cost: planting trees or shrubs, installing hanging baskets, providing more bins and having dedicated teams to remove fly-posters, graffiti and chewing gum. All of that will make our high streets cleaner and more enjoyable to visit.
The Government need a strategy to tackle our empty and derelict shops, and to ensure that at local level, as is the case with the Kingswood Business Association, local communities can be empowered to get shops back into use, whether through local knowledge, sharing best practice or the introduction of lower rates set by the local authority. The Sun’s campaign has also pointed out the need to take a hard line on retail crime, for instance shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. I agree. Shoppers must feel safe in their local high street. If there is any chance that intimidation might take place, it must be tackled. Damaged or vandalised property must be repaired as soon as possible, and must never be tolerated. Equally, a business that is frequently the victim of crime is a business at risk of closing down. Tackling crime against small businesses can but assist urban regeneration.
We should recognise that the night life of local high streets is equally important to their reputation and long-term sustainability. In Kingswood, I found a mutual desire on the part of restaurant, pub and nightclub owners, the police and South Gloucestershire council to ensure that Kingswood high street is as safe a place as possible to enjoy a meal or a drink on a night out. The council has recently made a substantial investment in CCTV, at the same time as investing in taxi marshals to ensure that local people can get home safely.
Following the refurbishment of Kingswood civic centre—a huge investment by South Gloucestershire council, which signals its commitment to invest in Kingswood—I was delighted to see that local police will once again be based on Kingswood high street, enabling them to meet the local community’s immediate needs and provide for its safety. We should constantly be on the lookout for ways to make our local high streets as safe as possible, and as the local MP, I continue to work with every interested party to ensure that that happens.
We are already witnessing new changes and new beginnings in Kingswood. Since the election of a new council in 2007, the local community has witnessed record investment, but change must be matched by a commitment to the future. There is much more to do, and I am committed to doing the best I can for Kingswood and to standing up for our local high street.
As Members of Parliament, we should and must act as effective champions for our local areas, refusing merely to allow the status quo to continue and refusing to stand still and allow our local high streets to fall into disrepair. We, too, have a responsibility to stand up for our communities and high streets and to enable local people to discover how they can make their high streets better places to work, better places to shop and better places to enjoy.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me make a couple of general points that might help hon. Members. First, it is helpful if those who intend to speak in Westminster Hall write to Mr Speaker. A number of you have done so, but others have not.
Secondly, I mean no disrespect to my old colleague, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), for whom I was a special adviser, but normally the order of dress in this Chamber is the same as in the main Chamber. It being Christmas, however, a degree of latitude is probably perfectly in order.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It being Christmas, you might be more generous, Mr Gray.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
It is a very Christmassy outfit, if I may say so.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall make an unashamedly parochial speech, but before I do, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that high streets are usually dominated by small businesses. Often these are innovative businesses, which, as he rightly said, work extremely hard. On occasion, they are run by one or two people with a great commitment to the service they offer local people. I also agree about the importance of the campaign that The Sun has been running.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of interesting points about the Localism Bill and the benefits that it will, in his view, offer down the line. I will be interested to hear what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), thinks about that Bill.
I want to make two parochial points and one point about London. My first parochial point is about north Harrow, which is in my constituency. I have lived there for most of my life, and I should perhaps invite hon. Members to follow the example of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by visiting north Harrow, which he did during the general election campaign—he was taking time out to support my campaign, or, at least, I think that was what was going on. On his visit, he would have had the chance, as will other hon. Members if they take time out to come to north Harrow to support my next election campaign, to see some great restaurants. Britain’s best fish and chip shop is probably in north Harrow, but there are also a series of superb cafés, delis and Indian restaurants. Other businesses include great newsagents and a fantastic shoe repairers.
I want to raise a concern about north Harrow, however, which came ninth out of nine in Harrow council’s annual look at the viability of district centres in our borough. Indeed, as most residents of north Harrow will recognise, it has had a series of problems attracting new businesses since the closure of the Safeway supermarket in 2002. Concerns about north Harrow’s viability as a district centre have been thrown into stark relief in recent days with the closure of north Harrow’s last major bank—Lloyds—on Friday. Lloyds management cited the decline in footfall in north Harrow as the reason for shutting the branch, which is the only one that they have shut in recent months in the whole of London.
The council and I, as the Member of Parliament, have been in touch with Lloyds bank and we have pressed it, albeit unsuccessfully, to reconsider its decision. However, we also asked it to do a number of other things. First, we have asked it to work with the local council to think about what it can put back into north Harrow to support businesses in the area. Secondly, we have asked the bank to look at how it can work with the post office in north Harrow to extend the range of services that Lloyds customers use. Many constituents are not aware that the post office provides a service for Lloyds bank customers. The concern is that many people who previously came to north Harrow to use the bank will not recognise that they can use the post office for their banking needs and will instead go to other areas, including, worst of all, neighbouring areas such as Hillingdon, Brent or Hertfordshire.
The last issue that I want to raise in regard to north Harrow relates to the space occupied by the former Safeway store, which has been closed since 2002. New flats have been built above the store to house key workers, but the space that Safeway occupied still has no businesses in it, which appears to be the result of a problem over the ownership of the lease. The local council is looking at the issue, but I hope that the owners of the lease and, indeed, the Genesis housing association, which built the flats above the space, will work much harder with the local council in the early part of 2011 to resolve the question of the lease once and for all. That will enable this crucial space to be promoted again so that we can have businesses in it.
The hon. Member for Kingswood made a crucial, albeit brief, point about the need to recognise early signs of concern about the viability of district centres, which brings me to my second parochial point. Harrow town centre remains extremely viable with a series of what would be classified as major high street areas running through it. However, it faces huge competition from the Harlequin centre in Watford, Brent Cross and the attractions of central London. Over the past 10 to 15 years, there has been no major development in Harrow town centre and no major consideration of what we need to do to maintain the viability and attractiveness of the borough’s premier high street area. The council is beginning to look at the issue, and I hope that all the businesses with an interest in Harrow will work extremely closely with the local council to make sure that there is no slippage in Harrow town centre’s competitiveness.
The only point at which the hon. Gentleman almost lost my interest and enthusiasm for what he was saying was when he described the Mayor of London as a great visionary, but as it is Christmas, I will skip over that. To be fair, however, there is one thing for which I should give the Mayor credit: introducing the bike hire scheme in central London. I worry, however, that he has not taken the same interest thus far in outer-London boroughs, and I hope that we will see early signs from him and from his successor in 18 months’ time of a new focus on outer-London areas such as Harrow.
I hope that there will be an extension of the bike hire scheme. It is interesting that the same country that provided the inspiration for the Mayor’s bike hire scheme now advocates considering a car hire scheme. If the occupants of the Mayor of London’s position in the coming years are interested in such a scheme—and they should certainly think about it—I hope they may be willing to explore whether they could work with Harrow council on it, or, indeed, on other schemes to promote economic regeneration. Outer London deserves more attention than it has traditionally had from those in City Hall. I hope that the Mayor of London will prioritise support for Harrow generally and, given the particular concern that I have raised about its viability, north Harrow.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
A debate of this kind inevitably has something of a Cook’s tour quality, so I want to take hon. Members from Harrow down either the A40 or the M40, or the Chiltern railway line, to Bicester and Banbury. The two main towns in my constituency are market towns, and their only real raison d’être has been as market towns.
Retail continues to change every decade. The Banbury in photographs taken in the 1930s looks very different from the Banbury of the 1940s, ’50s, ’60s or ’70s. There is continuous evolution because retail is all about millions of people making decisions—thousands of decisions each day—about how they spend their money, and that evolution will continue.
In recent years, two substantive changes have affected town centres and high streets. One is shopping near the edge of town, or out of town. Banbury has excellent supermarkets: Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. However, they are on the outskirts—on the edge of the town. People want to use them and they are much used. We must accept that part of the retail revolution as a given.
The other revolutionary change is the use of the internet. I understand that 10% of Christmas presents will be bought on the internet this year. I recently visited the Christmas sorting office of Banbury post office, as I have done practically every year for the past 30. I suspect that every other right hon. and hon. Member has also visited their sorting office. In previous years, I saw thousands and thousands of Christmas cards. Last year I started to notice some parcels, but this year the place is awash with parcels from Amazon and elsewhere. I shall take this opportunity to pay a compliment to all the postmen and women who have been getting out in grim conditions. In the villages of north Oxfordshire yesterday, the one constant sight was the Post Office van, which was getting through to deliver the huge number of parcels bought on the internet.
Nowadays the internet makes Christmas shopping easy. Both my children’s Christmas presents were bought on the internet. The situation with my wife is much simpler; she just tells me what she has bought for me to give her. I am not sure whether she bought it on the internet, but it is a very simple system. However, the internet revolution will not go away. People will buy more and more on the internet.
At any one moment about 12% of the retail properties in Banbury are voids. They change—some come and some go—but over the past three or four years, walking down the high street in Banbury or in the market square, one has seen those voids. I do not see where the speciality shops will come from to fill those voids. We have had—and do have—regeneration in Banbury. We have the fantastic Castle Quay shopping centre. We have just had a scheme, involving the Environment Agency, through which a private sector contribution is enabling Banbury to continue with some flood defences that will make town centre regeneration possible along the Oxford canal. Some really grotty existing light industrial areas will be redeveloped for affordable housing and new businesses. The area will be really exciting, but we will still be left with much empty retail space.
The question I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister is about a conundrum with which we shall all have to get to grips. Much of the void retail property belongs to commercial developers. It is on their balance sheets as an asset. They do not particularly mind about the situation. They are not getting rent from the property, but they are happy to leave such capital assets where they are. It seems that there is no incentive for them to bring it back into useful existence. I have come to a conclusion about what we shall need to do in a town such as Banbury with much of that former retail space. That space is not being used, and the space above it, where shopkeepers would once have lived but which later became commercial space, is pretty grotty commercial space that is difficult to let, as much better commercial office space is being built on business parks around the town. Realistically, it will be difficult to let that space. I think that we need to bring it back into housing use as flats above shops to house young people, students, and key workers such as nurses.
To some extent that is already happening in Banbury, but I suspect that we shall need it to happen a lot more. What can we do to accelerate the process? What can be done to encourage commercial landlords to see that they will get better yields by seeking planning permission to convert some of the empty retail space into accommodation than they will by leaving it as retail voids? I am thinking of setting up a prize for the grottiest, longest-term void, and at present the award would undoubtedly go to a site that was the headquarters of Crest Hotels in Banbury, which is an abomination unto the Lord. That complete mess, which is within a cricket ball’s throw of the town hall, is now just used by roosting pigeons. There seems to be very little incentive for the owners or freeholders of the property to bring it back into use and turn it into offices or housing.
We need to provide some incentives—either carrots or sticks—to owners of empty retail space to get them to consider what uses they can put the buildings to, other than leaving them as retail voids. Of course, that means that the local planning authority must be supportive and encouraging about people returning to live in town centres and high streets. However, given the unmitigated pressure on new housing—particularly for young people, students, single people and key workers—I should have thought that that approach would produce an ideal relationship involving trying to find existing buildings to convert to flats and housing for such people.
The uncomfortable truth is that aspects of the retail revolution are such that we are never going to see our town centres or high streets revert to what they were in the 1950s or 1940s. The retail revolution has moved on. We must find other ways to secure the vitality and viability of town centres with the shops, retail experiences, banks and building societies that already exist. We must do all that we can, of course, to ensure that people want to come to the town centre and use it as a focus for the community. However, we must also accept that we shall never need all our town centres’ historical retail space for retail purposes. Some of it could better be converted to housing. However, the mechanisms for bringing that about—how to get the housing and how to get more people living in town centres—are a conundrum, and I should welcome the Minister’s thoughts.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I ask for your guidance, Mr Gray. Are we aiming for 10.30 am for the Front Benchers?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
I want as many hon. Members as possible to contribute.
John Hemming
We have four wanting to speak, so that would be about eight minutes.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think I can work that out for myself. Perhaps he would like to get on with his speech.
John Hemming
I have to work it out for myself to decide when to stop speaking. Thank you, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate and refer hon. Members to a declaration of interest as part-owner of MarketNet, an e-commerce operation running since 1994.
I would like to follow on from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), because he made key points. A lot of this is driven by financial realities. Supermarkets have two advantages: no wholesaling, so they keep the whole of the margin, and an oligopsony—that is, the buying power allows them to drive down the prices at which they buy goods, which therefore allows them to compete financially, more so with shops that have to take the wholesale-retail route.
We have been trying for 11 years in Yardley to redevelop the Tivoli centre, where there used to be a shopping centre built on the site of an old cinema. Although the Labour councillors decided to vote to stop it recently, after 11 years we are finally getting a redevelopment of the Swan centre, or Tivoli centre, which should see another 600 jobs for the constituency. That plan is underpinned by Tesco, which I have supported, because I want to see the redevelopment of the site. The finances are such that we cannot redevelop that site without money coming in from somewhere. The community right to buy—a very good project—has to be underpinned by finances. The difficulty for high streets is how to deal with the fact that there has been a movement away from retail on the high street. That raises a number of issues, one of which is the dereliction. Look at the issue from the commercial landlords’ perspective: if they accept a lower rent, one difficulty is that they then have to devalue the property in their accounts. They do not want to do that because it could derail them to a much greater extent. We need to find an incentive, as we have for empty homes, for empty commercial properties so as to encourage people to recognise the realities of life and develop that.
There is a distinction between high streets and shopping centres such as Bluewater, which was referred to earlier. High streets are public spaces. We can have marches up and down them; we have loads of parades in Birmingham, all over the place. We do not have those in shopping centres; we have little things, because shopping centres are private spaces. That issue needs to be looked at, with the owners of shopping centres, as it devalues the community aspects. The great advantage of Acocks Green, like other places in Birmingham, is that it was based on a market right in the centre, in Digbeth, but is in fact an urban area developed out of a number of villages. All the villages have centres and, oddly enough, places such as the Yew Tree are bypasses of the village of Old Yardley. Houses have grown up where fields used to be between the villages. They are village centres that were owned by the communities. The shopping centres that have developed do not have that same community ownership, which is rather sad. That is something that local government and national Government should work on—trying to develop more community involvement and a general feeling that it is all part of our wider community. I accept that they are private centres—there is no question about that—but it is sad to lose that communal element.
Farmers’ markets, for instance, can really add to an area. There are many places in Birmingham with farmers’ markets, which are good to have. Their element of disorder—the word we use at the moment is “chaos”—means that they are not structured, but are all different. We are never quite sure what we are going to find; it is not all Café Rouge and Pizza Hut. There is a children’s song about Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut, which those who have young children will know. Though that is a national song, it is nice to have the variety created by different organisations. It is good if someone sets up a retail outlet, creates new ideas and develops them.
However, we do have to come down to the finances—that is where the Government need to study to what extent there is a level playing field. As the footfall moves into the shopping centres, as it has done, the value is clearly no longer in the land values in high streets. The effect of the commercial financing is such that people do not want to accept a lower rent because they would have to devalue the asset. That leads to the dereliction that is damaging to the community in the wider sense. To that extent, I support the hon. Member for Banbury, in that we need to look at incentives to ensure that we do not have dereliction. I think I have probably said enough.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on his excellent speech. I now know considerably more about Kingswood than I did about 45 minutes ago. He clearly has a great passion for the area he represents and has done a tremendous job. He made an interesting speech, which I hope other hon. Members will develop. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has just left his seat. I know he did not wish to say too much about Boris Johnson, given that it is Christmas. I am not sure whether he meant that Boris Johnson was either the Messiah or a very wise man. No doubt he will have the opportunity to tell us at some later stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made an interesting speech. He developed an issue to which I had not given much thought—dealing with long-term voids in high streets to boost the private rented sector. My experience as an inner-city MP is that nothing is more important than a vibrant and stable residential population to ensure a boost for such areas.
Many Members may wonder on what basis I am speaking. Are there any high streets in Cities of London and Westminster? There are many of the most traditional high streets, such as Cheapside, in the City of London, where one of the largest shopping developments in central London in recent years has opened. Oxford street was once Westminster’s high street, though it perhaps has more profound resonance now. Other residential shopping areas can be found in Marylebone high street and Elizabeth street. I accept that those two are in the relatively wealthy areas of Marylebone and Belgravia, but their vibrancy and success are due fundamentally to having a relatively stable, single landowner, which makes a big difference to the choice of shops available. To an extent, the Howard de Walden and the Grosvenor estates in each of those cases—the same applies to the Portman estate, which does a tremendous job around Edgware road—have realised the importance of variety in a local shopping centre. Although I do not know all the statistics, there is little doubt that there has been an element of having loss leaders, allowing particular shops to pay considerably lower rates or to get a rate rebate.
I accept that that is not necessarily a panacea that can apply throughout the country. I am lucky in that there are great pockets of wealth in my constituency. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the drab Marylebone high street that I first walked down only 25 years ago, when I worked in London between school and university, has been transformed. It has become much respected, with people coming from beyond London to shop there, even though it is less than half a mile from Oxford street. Having traditional, independent restaurants, bookstores and small specialist food stores such as bakeries and cheese shops, makes a tremendous difference.
Damian Collins
Does my hon. Friend agree that one interesting idea in the Government’s Localism Bill and White Paper on local growth is whether councils around the country might take on the role of some of the big landlord estates in London? They could try to stimulate economic growth in their areas by supporting certain types of business, which might in turn lead to other business growth.
Mr Field
I agree. That would be a useful way forward. One difficulty is often the disparate freehold ownership on a lot of high streets. I certainly do not think that there is a need for a centralised plan, but there needs to be a vision that goes beyond simply ensuring that tenants are paying rent this year and next, and the one after. There needs to be a vision for 15 or 20 years. We always need to take into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly said, which is that it is hard to put a finger on how high streets will look in 20 years’ time. They have certainly changed every decade since the 1940s, due to different shopping habits.
I am sorry that the two Members representing suburban London seats who were here earlier have gone. There are specific problems in suburban London, which I would not wish to put to one side. I have a great passion for London as a whole and recognise that there are certain advantages in representing a very central London seat. In Orpington, where my wife’s family came from, and in Harrow, there are some fundamental problems, partly as a result of out-of-town shopping centres. A slight irony of the recent snowfall is that many people have not been able to get out in their cars to do that sort of shop, and have therefore been forced back to see the offering in their own high street.
There are no easy solutions to all this. One possibility is to have a single landowner who can perhaps make an area special, look at flagship stores and, where possible, consider loss leaders.
I want to touch on business improvement districts. In fairness, they are greatly to the credit of the previous Labour Government, who introduced elements of the legislation, and they have been a great success. In my own constituency, the New West End Company, which operates around Regent street, Bond street and Oxford street, has been a great success. We have seen various other business improvement districts around the Paddington Basin area, and demand is increasing. However, the money that has been spent by business improvement districts tends to be focused on aesthetics and on increasing the number of policemen to ensure that shoppers feel safer and that shops are less subject to crime.
With local authorities facing difficult financial settlements not just for this year and next, but probably for the rest of this decade, I worry that this should not be seen just as a matter of substitution. I encourage town centres to consider going down the business improvement district route, although they will still see money being taken away by way of what should be the normal local authority responsibility. We need to bear that in mind, as we do supplementary business rates.
I want to mention supermarkets, which have been touched on by other hon. Members. It is easy to criticise supermarkets. I have stood up for them previously in this Chamber, and I think that they do a tremendous job in many ways. They provide phenomenal choice that was unseen a decade or two ago. None the less, I accept what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said—I think he referred to an oligarchy of sorts being adopted, although I cannot remember how he phrased it. I also worry that the grocery ombudsman route may not be an entirely sensible way forward.
If we are to have a vibrant shopping centre, a flagship supermarket is almost always needed. Waitrose is in Marylebone high street in my constituency; we also see various Sainsbury’s and Tesco stores, particularly some of the smaller ones. However, I would like to see newsagents playing a part in the high street, for example, and I would like supermarkets to show some responsibility by, for instance, not selling newspapers. That would ensure that newsagents within 50 or 100 yards of the supermarket had a chance to thrive. If there was a long-standing fishmonger nearby, let us hope that the local Sainsbury’s or Tesco would not sell fish. In other words, we need to ensure that people do not have to do all their shopping in a particular Sainsbury’s or Tesco—an all-singing, all-dancing supermarket—at the expense of the smaller stores. That would present the supermarkets, which do a tremendous job, with an opportunity to show a certain amount of self-restraint, rather than having to be bossed around by an all-powerful ombudsman. Thank you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to speak. I look forward to other contributions to the debate.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I am grateful to have the pleasure of speaking in the debate, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing it. This is an important debate for a constituency such as mine, which has a collection of village high streets and three market towns. I think that I can still refer to them as market towns, as all three have markets, but I suspect that by the end of my term here, I will have to call them supermarket towns. One new supermarket opened in my first six months as an MP, and the threat of another couple in the other two towns is further damaging the high streets.
Perhaps one of the great pleasures of being an MP is supporting “shop local” campaigns. When my girlfriend says, with apologies to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), “Can we go to the Westfield centre in Derby?” or, “How about Meadowhell?”—sorry, I think I am meant to say “Meadowhall”—I can say, “No, we need to shop local.” I had great pleasure taking her out to Ripley on Sunday to spend far too much money on jewellery. It seems that we have legalised product placement, and with the number of lists of shops that have been cited in this debate, perhaps some of us are having a try at that here.
To return to my point, I have three market towns in my constituency: Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley. I am giving nothing away when I say that they all have challenges to face. As other hon. Members have mentioned, we have empty shops, pubs and business premises, and bits of land that have been set aside for bypasses that will never happen. There is no magic easy fix for such problems. None the less, those towns now have glossy regeneration plans—the previous Government insisted upon them—with 100-page booklets full of glossy pictures. I am a little suspicious, because the plans are very similar for each town, with a slightly different road map to reflect the historic roads. Fundamentally, we are several tens of millions of pounds short of achieving those plans.
Perhaps we need to think a little more strategically about what a town should look like and how it should be changed and sorted out. There is a risk that everyone looks at a town and tries to do the same thing. We tend to think, “How do we get the shops back to where they were 30 years ago? How do we get independent shops to come back here when they have practically all left, and how do we reopen that pub?” We may need to go beyond that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned, and accept that things have changed and that we do want to shop at supermarkets. I suspect that we are all guilty of getting back at 9 o’clock at night and of doing our shopping when only the supermarket is open. It is much easier to do that than to go down the high street during opening hours. People exercise their right to choose, so we need to find a plan for our towns that lives in the real world and applies to the future world, and that does not try to take us back 30 or 40 years to what used to work then. There are things that national and local government can do to encourage the change. I am pleased with some of the things that the new Government are doing. We must ensure that planning control is actually about planning rather than development. We must look at what we want to have in each town, where we want it and how we get it.
When I look around at least one of my towns, all I see are rows of betting shops, takeaways and charity shops. They are not great for the vibrancy of a town. One of the ways in which we can reduce the number of betting shops in a row is to allow them to have more than four slot machines. The problem is we may then have two empty betting shops rather than two full units. Councils should have the planning power to say, “No, we have enough betting shops and takeaways; we want something different.”
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this debate. It is wonderful to see so many Members here despite the imminent recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) hit on a key point when he talked about practicalities, the reality and individual choice. In my constituency, this is such a hot topic that should I call such a debate, some 200 people would descend to try to talk about what they want to do about their closed shops and multiple shops of the same style. This issue is definitely about localism, and it cannot be about prescriptive ideas. We must ensure—I hope that the Minister will do this—that we empower local councils and individuals to do what is right for their area.
Nigel Mills
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. One thing that councils should have the power to do is to say, “Right, we want this town to be a focus for restaurants or for small shops.” They should be able to choose whatever is right for that town and look at how they can encourage that. We have heard talk of granting business rate discounts, and that is certainly something that we can do. We can grant a holiday for the first year, or half rate for a few years, to give businesses a chance to establish themselves. We can try to streamline the planning system so that we can say, “If you want to convert this empty shop or that void into this kind of outlet, we will guarantee that you can get that planning permission.” That would speed up the process and take out some of the costs. Let us look at practical measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) talked about trying to rig together freehold ownership. I know that towns have a problem with the numerous different owners in the high street—they might have banks owning closed branches, a few pub landlords owning pubs that are boarded up, individuals who own shops but cannot be found, and a couple of obscure trusts. We must try to find a way in which we can bring that together. Perhaps we could consider innovative land swaps. Councils might have valuable land outside the town that could be attractive for out-of-town parking, while someone’s land in the centre could be used to regenerate the town. We need to get a critical mass of ideas together so that we can do something rather than thinking, “I can fix two of these 27 outlets, but I still have a problem with the other 25.”
I shall now address car parking, which is probably a poisoned chalice. Anyone who talks to small shopkeepers or owners of small businesses will know that they say that they cannot compete with supermarkets because supermarkets can give free parking to all their shoppers, whereas the customers of small shops have to park half a mile away down a hill, and pay various rates for that privilege. They say that they just cannot compete with supermarket parking for either convenience or cost. The situation is difficult, because councils want the revenue from car parking, and it must be right that car parks be maintained—we want safe, clean, well-lit car parks, and the cost of such maintenance must be met from somewhere. However, one of the things that kills town centres is that people just do not want to pay the £1 or £2 they are charged to park in them. When people are spending £5 on petrol to get to a town centre, it is hard to believe that the 50p for parking will put them off, but if anyone looks at the cars along a free-parking residential street, it clearly does.
We need to take a strategic view. If we are going to save our town centres, we need to think, “What can we bring here that will be viable and self-perpetuating? What can we do to help people to come here, even if we cannot chuck millions of pounds at it? What do we need to do to get the infrastructure, parking and public transport access right, and the pavements well lit and attractive?” If we try to bring those things together and create the right conditions, we can make this plan work. I am afraid that the time for trying to find a one-size-fits-all approach and an attitude of saying, “Let’s go back to the 1960s high street”—great as that might be—has now passed.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this important debate. I agree with much that has been said about the regeneration of local high streets, but I would like to make a couple of parochial points about Pendle.
We in Pendle face the same issues as many town centres throughout the country due to people’s changing shopping patterns and competition from out-of-town retailers. However, different parts of the borough face different challenges. The pedestrianisation of the main high street in Nelson, which is the largest town that I represent, was a serious and expensive mistake which, if anything, accelerated the loss of local shops. I am pleased to say that a £2.3 million scheme to reopen Nelson’s main high street, with the hope of helping to revitalise the town centre, is nearing completion. That scheme, which began in June, will help to bring traffic back through the town centre and improve the street scene. Crucially—this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was just talking about—it will allow shoppers to park much closer to local stores so that those stores can compete more effectively with supermarkets and out-of-town stores that have free car parking immediately outside their doors.
The project is an essential step in helping us to breathe new life into Nelson town centre. Since the general election, I have held monthly meetings with the leader of Pendle borough council, Mike Blomeley, and its chief executive, Stephen Barnes, to talk about some of the challenges that we face, as well as specifically about how we can work together proactively to regenerate our local high street, which is something that concerns us all.
Several hon. Members have touched on the important fact that we still have some excellent local shops in our areas. We need to bring shoppers back to areas such as Nelson. However, far too many of my constituents who live outside Nelson town centre say to me, “There are no decent shops in Nelson.” If they visited the town centre, they would realise that many of the independent and family-run butchers, bakers, jewellers and gift shops are still there. We have far too many boarded-up shops, but there are still some real gems hidden on the high street. That is why my message about “shop local” campaigns, with which many Members in the Chamber today are involved, has always been, in regard to local shops, that we really need to encourage people to use them, or lose them. I was therefore delighted to be in Nelson last Friday to open the new post office. Given the number of post office closures in recent years, it seemed odd for a Member of Parliament to be opening a new one. However, I congratulate Mr Vali, who has invested in opening a new post office store in the old Woolworth building in the town centre. That new post office is one aspect of the ongoing regeneration of Nelson town centre.
In Colne, which is the town where I live, the situation is very different. We have a number of empty shops, but by and large the high street is doing very well. We have a number of shops, pubs and restaurants, and the town centre tends to be quite busy. However, one of the biggest problems facing Colne is something that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood: we have a number of significant buildings that have fallen into disuse and disrepair.
One of the biggest of those buildings in Colne is Shackleton Hall, a landmark building on the high street. Despite being grade II listed, it became an eyesore after years of neglect and was put on English Heritage’s at-risk register. I am therefore delighted to be able to tell hon. Members that renovation of that building began in July and is now well under way. There is a £2 million project to invest in the building. The main building is being converted into modern office space with a retail arcade below, while preserving the Victorian exterior. Once it is renovated, the building will become the new headquarters for Housing Pendle, which is currently located just a few doors away in Colne town hall, as well as providing additional retail space on the high street. After years of neglect, I am delighted to see this historic building transformed and brought back into use at long last. It will be a great boost to Colne town centre, both helping to brighten up the town and providing more jobs.
I cite the two examples in Nelson and Colne today because although, as a lot of Members have already mentioned, it is very important to remember the contribution that can be made by local chambers of commerce and business associations, and by automatic rate relief, it is also important to remember that intervention is needed in some areas to address the most challenging issues. I am therefore delighted by the Government’s launch of the regional growth fund, which I believe will help to fund the regeneration of many high streets across the north of England. I am also pleased about many of the provisions in the Localism Bill, which will make regeneration easier, along with the provisions in the White Paper on local growth. Given the time, I will end my speech, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate. One of the great strengths of the institution of the Westminster Hall debate is that it brings to the fore issues of great concern to the citizens we represent. The hon. Gentleman and others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), have spoken with passion about why high streets matter.
The evidence is clear. High streets have a special place in the heart and the habits of the people of Britain. At its best, the British high street is not only where people go to shop but where they go to find services, access leisure facilities and meet friends in bars, pubs and restaurants. It is, therefore, a very important place in the make-up of our local communities. It deserves to be protected and promoted.
High streets vary in their nature from a row of shops on the one hand to complex city centres on the other, and it is not true that high streets are universally in decline. On the contrary, some are succeeding, in particular—but not exclusively—those in affluent areas. Evidence from the Town and Country Planning Association, Planning Aid and the Federation of Small Businesses shows that the high streets that succeed are accessible, cared for, invested in, clean and safe, and have an attractive environment.
In a typically thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) was right to point to the success of Marylebone high street. I, too, remember Marylebone high street 25 years ago; now it is the thriving heart of Marylebone. Evidence of the ability to turn around decline can be seen in some of the great city centres, ranging from Birmingham—after the bullring was bulldozed, we saw in its place a vibrant city centre high street—to Manchester, which has seen the remarkable repopulation and regeneration of its city centre.
Sadly, other high streets are slowly declining, often—but not exclusively—in poorer areas. That decline is characterised by empty shops, a poor environment, lack of investment, the growth of pound shops and charity shops, and the decreasing use of the high street as the quality of the offer is eroded, allied to the flight of the multiples—the household name shops—to shopping malls and out-of-town shopping centres. A vicious circle of decline is destroying communities’ social fabric and condemning too many citizens to shopping and socialising in inferior places.
Evidence from the Town and Country Planning Association, Planning Aid and the Federation of Small Businesses shows clearly what is needed to turn the tide. Public intervention is key, as are public investment and the public sector’s use of its powers, working in partnership with the private sector, to create the climate for private sector investment to regenerate the high street.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly pointed to the success of many business improvement districts. Several things are key to such regeneration programmes, such as road access, good public transport, parking facilities, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, and a pleasant pedestrianised environment. High streets should also be well cleaned, as the evidence shows that citizens desert dirty high streets, and well policed, because citizens do not shop on unsafe high streets.
High streets should have toilets, as evidence from Age Concern and others is that senior citizens do not go to areas where they cannot spend a penny. High streets should have changing facilities for babies, as the evidence shows that young parents do not take their children to places without such facilities. Disabled access is also crucial. A remarkable young woman in my constituency with muscular dystrophy is waging an admirable campaign for household name Next to install a disabled lift so that young women such as she can shop there like anyone else.
High streets should also include public service front offices. The hon. Member for Kingswood was right—dare I say it? MPs should be based in their high street. I have moved to just off the high street, because I think it is right that MPs should be in the heart of our communities. It is impossible to achieve all those objectives and regenerate the high street without a combination of public intervention and public investment and the use of planning powers, including compulsory purchase.
I know from my experience in Birmingham and Erdington that there is a contrast. Erdington high street is in decline; I have been told hundreds of times that it is not what it once was. On the other hand, shopping malls such as the Fort and the Star City leisure complex have grown. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was right to mention that trend. Yet some high streets have succeeded. The small high street in Castle Vale in Erdington is at the heart of a remarkable regeneration project in that estate. As the representative of Erdington, I place a high priority, as do all Members here today, on the regeneration of our local high streets. I welcome the fact that we have turned the tide on Erdington high street. Sainsbury’s has agreed to move back into the high street, and I hope that Mothercare will follow. It is right that we have public service facilities in our high streets, which is why I welcome the opening of the NHS health and well-being centre on Erdington high street.
The debate has focused on disturbing long-term trends that give rise to legitimate concerns on the part of the people we represent. However, I stress that the evidence is clear: the decline of that great British institution, the high street, is not inevitable. All over the country, decline is being arrested and high streets are now succeeding. If the public good is to be realised and we are to have high streets of which our communities can be proud, and if the private market is to flourish through investment in high streets, it is crucial that the public sector work in partnership with the private sector to the benefit of the communities that we represent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who gave a clear picture of both the good and the not-so-good aspects of the situation that he and Kingswood face. I thank other Members and hon. Friends, who have contributed thoughtfully to the debate, with considered contributions and positive ideas about how things can be put right while accepting, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) just said, that the country has many thriving local centres and high streets. We must not talk them down completely.
Town centres and local high streets are certainly extremely important. They are seen as being at the heart of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) made the point that they are civic as well as retail spaces: places where people can meet and greet, set up charity stalls or have their petitions signed. That is clearly distinct from the rather regulated world of shopping malls and retail centres. It is vital that we create the right environment for local businesses to thrive and support economic growth and regeneration in our high streets.
The Government are taking a new approach to local growth, recognising that it must be driven locally. The hon. Member for Kingswood made the point clearly that we should seek local solutions to local problems. That is exactly the approach that this Government are taking through localism—putting residents, local businesses and civic leaders in the driving seat and providing them with new rights, powers, tools and incentives to drive local regeneration and growth. It is important to create a fairer and more balanced sustainable economy. Without it, UK businesses cannot succeed, including small retail businesses.
Mr Thomas
Will the Minister join me in urging Lloyds bank, which has had huge taxpayer support, to recognise even as it withdraws from north Harrow in my constituency that it has a responsibility to the people there, who have invested in their bank over years, to help in the regeneration of north Harrow? Lloyds has a continuing responsibility to work with the local council, perhaps by providing financial resources, to support the regeneration initiatives planned for that part of my constituency.
Andrew Stunell
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech earlier, which he described as unashamedly parochial and which set out the issues that he and the community of north Harrow face. At several points during the debate, I felt a strong temptation to give my own constituency-based speech about local centres and high streets, but I guess that I am not permitted to do so. However, I will tell him that I too have been trying to ensure that banks withdrawing from high streets and local centres in my constituency accept their corporate responsibility. I hope he understands that I stand with him on that issue. Large chains, whether banks or retailers, should show some responsibility by investing in local communities. In this case, they are disinvesting in local communities. Their role is important and should not be overlooked.
I will concentrate specifically on the Government’s role and that of public policy. Hopefully, we can discuss what large private sector organisations might best do in another forum. As the hon. Member for Kingswood said, we launched the “Healthy High Street?” guide in November, and we are working with the Development Trusts Association to promote the temporary use of empty shops for the benefit of the community.
I want to pick up on one of the points made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in his contribution, which was characteristically diagonal to the general line of the debate, but helpful none the less. He noted that the retail environment changes constantly, decade by decade, and that it is not a question of returning to some golden age, but of accepting the existing retail environment and working with it. There is no doubt that one of the problems we face is the fact that the capital asset value of a property underpins the financing that the developer or ultimate owner relies on, and that value is calculated brutally as a multiple of the rental available from the property, which means that if the owners give a discount, often their capital value is written down. In these difficult times, and even in less difficult times, that means that they can find their financers on their backs seeking to renegotiate loans. That is why we have worked with the Development Trusts Association on “meanwhile leases” for the temporary occupation of shops, which can prevent that counter-productive write-down and at the same time give some life and vibrancy to high streets.
The hon. Member for Banbury also suggested that there was a role for a switch to housing. I want to make it clear that a key aim of the Localism Bill is to change our planning system so that such decisions will be in the hands of neighbourhoods, local communities and local councils, which can draw up district, neighbourhood or—as in the case of Banbury, which I guess has a town council—town council plans, based on their communities’ needs and requirements, and signed off through a local referendum. That will give local communities much better control and a much better chance to find the kinds of solution that they believe are needed. If that includes a switch to housing, or particular planning controls, that is for them to decide.
I must enter a note of caution about planning controls. When I started my career in local government some 30 years ago, a key concern was to prevent banks and building societies from dominating the high street. Three decades later, we are fighting to retain them, which is a measure of the change there has been. We are now fighting to stop take-away food stores opening, but I expect that in a few years’ time we will be fighting to save them. That is one of the paradoxes of a rapidly changing business environment.
The Government are not only giving new rights and powers to local councils and communities; they are also looking at the future of the town centres first document—planning policy statement 4. We shall be announcing shortly how we intend to take that forward as part of the national planning policy framework.
The key is to shift powers right down to the level where they matter. Each place is unique and has the potential to progress, and localities themselves are best placed to understand both the barriers and drivers to local growth. I will keep my fingers out of the machinery and not talk about parking policy, but that is a classic case where the solution in one town or shopping centre might be quite different from the solution needed in another local or district centre just a couple of miles away. The idea that there should be a national prescription for the solution—even a council-wide prescription—is surely mistaken.
Members have drawn attention to the provisions of the Localism Bill, to the coalition Government’s announcement on small business rate relief and to the new homes bonus. All those moves have wider policy implications, but they can all benefit the local high street. We want to create at national level a framework—an environment—where local decision making can flourish and there are real, workable incentives for investment, growth and development.
A couple of the points made in the debate should be emphasised. Farmers’ markets and street markets were mentioned, but we must not forget traditional real markets, which act as important magnets to bring people into many of our towns and communities. One of my Department’s roles is to raise the profile of such markets, which are an important element in the retail mix that can attract consumers and increase the vibrancy of town centres and high streets. I recognise that a well-run and successful market is a valuable local asset. In an interesting development, which is being replicated in many village and town high streets across the country, street traders in Marple, in my constituency, have worked effectively with the council to introduce an intermittent food fair and market. It has brought life and traffic to a shopping centre and started a vibrant culture of participation in that community.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) noted that Lloyds bank business could be transacted in post offices, and the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) said that he had recently opened a post office in his constituency. Those are signs of the importance of post offices as part of the mix of retail business in our high streets. I draw the attention of Members to the steps that the coalition Government have taken to secure the future of our retail sub-post office network, which is an important component of our high streets that should be retained for the future.
Andrew Stunell
I can unambiguously say yes to that. It is important that we encourage not only public services to make better use of post offices and make them a focal point in our communities, but also organisations such as Lloyds. If it is disinvesting in an area, it clearly has an obligation to provide suitable facilities not just to its customers but also to the community.
The Government are committed to a strong, sustainable post office network. We have put in £1.34 billion of funding over the spending review period to support the maintenance and modernisation of the network, and will be making a statement on plans for the future of the Post Office shortly.
We have had an interesting and thoughtful debate. I have been unable to respond to all the ideas produced, but I will certainly take them away for careful consideration.
Severe Weather (North Lincolnshire Rail Network)
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Unfortunately, this debate is not about a pleasurable subject, because it is about something that has caused considerable hardship and inconvenience—to put it mildly—to my constituents.
Surprisingly, there are 11 railway stations in my constituency although, sadly, there were no trains running through them for between eight and 11 days earlier this month. There two stations in the constituency of Great Grimsby, and one in Brigg and Goole—or two if one counts the Saturday-only service through Brigg that serves that constituency and the feeder stations for routes into my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) told me that he hoped to attend the debate and raise some specific points with the Minister, and perhaps that will happen.
It might be helpful if I provide a brief outline of those rail services and put into context their importance to my constituency. None of the 11 stations are major junctions. People go to Cleethorpes because, as I have said in previous debates, it is the premier resort on the east coast. They go to Immingham because it is, by volume, the UK’s largest port. They visit Barton-upon-Humber to look at the magnificent nature reserves or to marvel at the Humber bridge, just as the Minister did this time last year when she heard what a big issue the level of tolls across the bridge had become.
First TransPennine Express operates an hourly service between Cleethorpes and Manchester airport, connecting with the east coast main line at Doncaster. In most circumstances it is a good service, and the company should be congratulated on succeeding in building up the number of passengers using that route. East Midlands Trains runs services between Newark North Gate station, which is also on the east coast main line, and Grimsby Town, some of which go to Cleethorpes. In addition, a service between Cleethorpes and Barton-upon-Humber links to a connecting bus service that crosses the Humber bridge to Hull. The Barton line is an excellent example of a community coming together to support and promote local services. The group Friends of the Barton Line works in partnership with the local authority and has made great strides.
All those services were affected for a period of up to 11 days. Who is responsible for the network? Network Rail has primary responsibility for the industry’s performance, including “seasonal preparedness.” I find that phrase rather quaint, but it comes from “The Resilience of England’s Transport Systems in Winter”, which was published just two months ago. I am sure that the Minister has become rather familiar with that document over the past few weeks.
Network Rail has badly let down my constituents and those in the neighbouring constituencies of Louth and Horncastle, Brigg and Goole, Gainsborough, Great Grimsby and Scunthorpe, all of whom use the lines that run from Newark North Gate and Doncaster to Cleethorpes. It seems, however, that Network Rail does not want to explain what went wrong. On 7 December, after a week in which there had been no trains, I faxed a letter to the acting chief executive of Network Rail and asked how many snow ploughs were available for use in northern Lincolnshire, and where the two routes to which I referred came in his company’s priorities. I advised him that I intended to raise the issue in the House and that, along with hon. Members from neighbouring constituencies, I would like to meet him or one of his senior executives to discuss the situation to consider how things could be improved, should the bad weather reoccur. I followed up that fax with a hard copy of my letter last week, but sadly I have received no reply. I am sure that the Minister has had more success obtaining such information, but that does not excuse the chief executive’s apparent contempt for his customers in Lincolnshire.
My constituents are asking what efforts Network Rail made to clear the line. They recognise that main lines will take priority and that essential freight routes must be cleared, especially when they are needed to get coal supply to power stations. What exasperates them, however, is that much of the country’s coal supply arrives at Immingham docks. If freight can get through, why not passenger trains?
I have some questions for the Minister. How many snow ploughs are available for use in northern Lincolnshire, and when were they utilised on the lines I have mentioned? Were offers from freight operators to use their locomotives with snow ploughs refused by Network Rail? Were coal and freight services maintained in and out of Immingham throughout the most difficult conditions, and if not, on what date did those services resume? Were points permanently set for Immingham at Brocklesby junction and, if so, was that because no point heaters were in use? Are there plans to install such heaters? Without the heaters, manual labour will be required, although presumably that did not happen—quite reasonably, passengers would like to know why.
Although Network Rail is chiefly responsible for the long period without trains, the train operators are not entirely innocent. If freight trains were running, why was First TransPennine Express operating only a shuttle service between Manchester and Sheffield? Northern Rail ran its stopping service between Sheffield and Scunthorpe, so why could First TransPennine Express not run services that far or, better still, to Barnetby? I acknowledge that three of its units were marooned at Cleethorpes, but a restricted service could, and should, have operated.
Why were there no alternative bus services? The M180 and A180 between Doncaster and Grimsby and Cleethorpes were open for all except part of the worst day or two. If the roads are open, are rail operators not duty bound to provide buses as an alternative? We accept that Network Rail must prioritise its efforts, but what are those priorities? Where does Cleethorpes sit in the priority list?
Until now, I have referred to the lines from Newark North Gate and Doncaster, but the worst affected service was that between Cleethorpes and Barton-upon-Humber, which was suspended on 1 December and did not resume until late afternoon on 11 December. Somewhat bizarrely, that service is operated by Northern Rail—I say bizarrely because a glance at the network map shows that that line is completely disconnected from the rest of the Northern Rail network.
Sadly, we have seen personal tragedies and inconveniences, to put it mildly. Perhaps the saddest case, as reported in the Grimsby Telegraph, was that of a pensioner who was found dead at Thorpe park caravan park in Cleethorpes. He had tried in vain to get home to Doncaster, but the icy weather had halted the trains and he was unable to make it back to his caravan. There is no definite evidence to link one situation with the other, but if that gentleman had made his way to Cleethorpes station and got on the train to Doncaster, clearly he would be alive and well.
I recognise that many individuals employed by the railway companies and Network Rail have worked hard to maintain services. However, my constituents and businesses in the area have been badly hit and let down by Network Rail. We expect better in the future, and I hope the Minister will provide us with reassurance about some of the points I have made. As I mentioned earlier, passengers are completely exasperated by the situation. Some can see trains passing from their homes but, for whatever reason, none of them are passenger trains.
Barnetby station is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. It is a remote station on the edge of the Lincolnshire wolds, and everyone accepts that access is difficult. However, Network Rail has offices there, and it is a local centre for workmen. It cleared a pathway past the railway station to get the workmen to work yet, for no apparent reason, no effort was made to allow passengers along that stretch. Barnetby railway station serves Humberside airport, which was operating reasonably well most of the time, and greater efforts should have been made in respect of that vital connecting route.
I hope that the Minister responds to some of my points. Network Rail has let down my constituents, who deserve better, so I hope that she can provide some reassurance.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, even if this is a rather melancholy subject for debate this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on securing the debate. He shows his dedication by ensuring that his constituents’ concerns are raised right up until the last moment that Parliament is sitting before the Christmas recess. No sloping off home early for my hon. Friend, who made a powerful speech on the severe problems on the railways in northern Lincolnshire, which occurred as a result of the extreme weather conditions at the end of November and during the first days of December, including a distressing incident reported in his local papers.
I will attempt to answer as many of my hon. Friend’s questions as possible, but he will appreciate that these are primarily operational matters for Network Rail. I have been able to get some answers out of Network Rail in advance of the debate, but I will have to come back to him on some of the matters that he has raised, which are new and specific, having gone back to Network Rail.
I am concerned that my hon. Friend has not yet had a response from Network Rail to his own representations. I hope that it will remedy that in the near future.
Looking at the general picture, there can be no doubt that the severity of both the current weather episode and the one on which my hon. Friend primarily focused is highly unusual and outside the normal expected pattern for UK winters. The volume of snow and the extreme cold mean that these incidents are out of line with weather patterns that we have come to expect in UK winters over recent years. Much of northern Europe has been affected in a similar way to the UK. Even countries that are more used to dealing with extreme cold have experienced major disruption.
In Switzerland, for example, the same band of weather caused severe problems to the road and rail networks, and the international airport at Geneva was shut for 36 hours. Similar events occurred in parts of Germany and Scandinavia.
Although various parts of the UK experienced some significant disruption to transport networks, my hon. Friend is right to say that rail services in his constituency were particularly badly hit by the problems that occurred at the beginning of this month. I understand and share his concerns about the impact that this crisis had on his constituents, and on businesses and the economy in his constituency.
For the sake of passengers and our economic prosperity, we need to ensure that transport operators and the Government work as hard as they can to secure the best service that is practicable and deliverable in difficult circumstances caused by extreme weather.
In October, before the onslaught of the winter weather, an independent review was published, as my hon. Friend said, on resilience of transport services in winter conditions. The review, led by David Quarmby, set out a series of recommendations that the Government and transport operators agreed to act on. The review emphasised the importance of smoother introduction of emergency railway timetables. It also highlighted the fact that contacts between local authorities and the rail industry should be improved with regard to road access to stations.
As the bad weather set in, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked David Quarmby to conduct an urgent audit of transport operators’ performance in England and their compliance with his earlier recommendations. The audit, which was published this morning, emphasises the importance of improving the information given to passengers in the event of disruption. For example, David Quarmby concluded that the rail industry is over-dependent on electronic provision of information. He feels that such systems do not, on their own, provide passengers with sufficient advice and help, nor can they properly demonstrate to passengers that those running transport systems really care about their plight when serious problems occur. We intend to work closely with train operators and Network Rail to respond to the recommendations made in the audit.
I would like to look in a little more detail at how events unrolled in north Lincolnshire at the beginning of the month. During the week of 28 November, cumulative snowfalls of up to 2 or 3 feet over several days were experienced across much of north Lincolnshire and north-eastern England. That initially resulted in delays and cancellation of train services in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and then the closure of several rail routes, as we have heard.
Passenger and freight services were unable to operate for several days in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area. North Lincolnshire is served by three passenger operators—East Midlands Trains, Northern Rail, and TransPennine Express—all of which were badly affected by the snow. Northern Rail services on the Barton-on-Humber branch were suspended from 1 to 11 December. East Midlands services between Lincoln, Cleethorpes and Grimsby were suspended between 1 and 8 December. The TransPennine Express route from Manchester to Cleethorpes was completely shut on 1 and 2 December, and from 3 to 7 December it operated only between Manchester and Sheffield. Three of TransPennine’s diesel units were stranded in their maintenance depots at Cleethorpes, which meant that, until the route and depot tracks were cleared of snow, TPE had insufficient resources to serve the Cleethorpes to Manchester route, with negative consequences for passengers across the Pennines.
My hon. Friend specifically raised concerns about the resilience of Brocklesby junction. This has been identified as an issue to be addressed and was flagged up as a concern before the period of severe weather. I understand that this important junction will be renewed at the next practicable opportunity. However, that is expected to be Christmas 2011, because a period of closure is obviously necessary to enable those works to be carried out. The works will include replacing the junction with modern track and fitting point heaters to the remaining unheated points, increasing the resilience of the junction.
I am advised that, throughout the period of disruption, the affected train operators remained closely in touch with Network Rail, working to clear routes as quickly as possible. However, their efforts were hampered by further falls of snow, freezing temperatures and reduced staff levels as their staff struggled to get to work on the disrupted road network.
Network Rail has access to a fleet of purpose-built, heavy-duty snow ploughs, together with a fleet of railway engines fitted with smaller ploughs. To respond to my hon. Friend’s questions, a number of locomotives fitted with snow ploughs were operating in the Lincolnshire area. However, in some places the snow was deeper than the snow ploughs were capable of clearing. Network Rail has a limited number of heavy-duty Beilhack snow ploughs, one of which was brought to the area on 3 December. It commenced snow clearance, but unfortunately became derailed that same evening because compacted ice had accumulated in the rail tracks at Garden Street level crossing due to council snow-clearing operations. The plough was put back on the rails, but from that point all level crossings unfortunately had to be cleared by hand.
I am afraid that I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the offers from freight companies, but I will seek to find it out from Network Rail and will let him know.
The problems faced by those trying to get the railways operating again were compounded by the fact that many roads in the area were impassable during the period. That made it difficult to get teams of engineers and workers to the places they needed to be to clear snow and repair damaged infrastructure. I am told that, despite repeated requests, bus and coach operators were not willing to provide replacement bus services in such difficult conditions.
Martin Vickers
I acknowledge the obvious difficulties that bus operators faced at that time, but many out-of-town buses were operating. For example, the one from Cleethorpes and Grimsby to Hull, via the bridge, was operating. Clearly, there was adequate access, particularly to the A180/M180.
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. One of the lessons that we need to take away from this episode of severe weather is that we need to ask the train companies whether they are being rigorous enough in their efforts to provide rail replacement buses.
Another point to highlight is that some of the consequences of a severe freeze can be felt after the thaw sets in. Ice and snow in the quantities experienced at the beginning of December can damage rolling stock and electrical equipment, which can require time and resources to repair. That can heavily affect train availability for some time after a weather event. It can therefore be prudent in some situations temporarily to suspend a service to avoid ongoing problems with reliability after lines reopen.
With heavy snowfall in the north-east of England, south Yorkshire, Durham, Derbyshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire, the rail industry was stretched to its limit during this period of bad weather. In such situations, I am afraid, Network Rail and the train operators have some difficult decisions to make on the deployment of those limited resources.
In deciding which routes are reopened first, priority is generally given to the busiest and most strategically important. Network Rail’s decisions on prioritisation are made by implementing key route strategies, which are designed in advance of adverse weather. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend’s representations to Network Rail will be taken on board as it looks at and revises its key route strategies.
The aim of such strategies is to focus limited resources where they can produce the maximum benefit for the national economy and for overall transport imperatives. My hon. Friend acknowledged the importance of keeping vital freight routes open so that our power stations can generate the electricity we need to keep our homes warm as the winter bites. That requires a constant flow of fuel and other resources. As he has told us, the port of Immingham is crucial, and Network Rail placed a priority on keeping freight flows—particularly power station coal trains—moving through the snow.
To do that, some rail junctions, including Brocklesby, were set for a specific route and then not moved for several days. That helps to protect the integrity of the rail network and it can keep critical freight flows moving. Unfortunately, there is no getting away from the fact that one consequence of the decisions needed to protect freight supplies was that lesser used, conflicting routes were subject to longer closure periods. Unfortunately, that included the Grimsby and Cleethorpes routes.
It is a grave concern that severe weather can leave passengers without rail services for such a prolonged period, as my hon. Friend highlighted. I can assure him that the Government will keep up the pressure on the rail industry to ensure that all practical and reasonable steps are taken to ensure that lines remain open where possible and that services continue. To achieve that, it is vital for us to work closely with the industry to plan effectively for and cope with winter weather conditions on the railways.
Throughout the crisis, officials in the Department were in constant contact with Network Rail and the train operators—before, during and after the severe weather episode. The Secretary of State has written to all train operating companies about winter preparedness. Meetings and conference calls have been held between Ministers and the industry to assess the response and progress towards restoration of normal services. That close co-operation continues during the current harsh weather conditions.
We are on course for the coldest winter since 1910. Extreme weather events will always cause disruption to the transport system, no matter how well prepared we are. However, we have now had three successive years in which the winter has contained exceptionally harsh periods. The question we need to ask now is whether that indicates that there is a long-running trend that we can expect to become the norm for this country’s climate. If so, we need to reassess our approach and the resources we devote to winter preparedness. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, to assess whether the past three years indicate a long-term change in our climate.
I reassure my hon. Friend, however, that I and my officials at the Department for Transport will continue to work hard with the rail industry to try to minimise future disruptions to train services in north Lincolnshire, and indeed across the network as a whole. We are obviously gravely concerned about the disruption that we witnessed during the episode referred to in the debate and the disruption on the east coast main line today.
It is also important to acknowledge railway workers, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and congratulate them on their hard work and dedication during the recent severe weather. Track workers and other staff have had to struggle on through horrendous conditions to keep as much of the network running as possible. I gather that, in a number of cases, staff slept at their work location for up to three days to ensure that they were able to do their next shift. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the efforts made by transport professionals across the nation to try to keep the country moving despite one of the toughest winters for 100 years.
2012 Olympics (Legacy)
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
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to have secured this debate on the last possible occasion in 2010. I want to set out some concerns, on behalf of the community that I represent, about the legacy of the 2012 Olympics. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), in whose constituency the Olympic stadium is located, had wanted very much to attend the debate, but her Front-Bench commitments have kept her away. I am grateful that the Minister is here. I am conscious that I shall of necessity touch on some topics beyond his brief, and I am grateful for his willingness to respond.
The 2012 Olympics are a huge opportunity for London and for Britain—and in particular for the regeneration of east London. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) is in the Chamber. She led our effort to secure the games for London, and the impact of her success will be etched on the economic geography of London for generations to come.
We are already seeing important benefits in east London. When the economy has been in poor shape in the past—for example during the period of cuts under the last Conservative Government in the 1980s—east London has been hammered. I am fearful about the impact on rising unemployment of the Government’s programme of cuts during the next four years. Last week’s unemployment figures have, I fear, given us a foretaste of what is to come.
In east London, however, we shall be buttressed to some extent by the fact that £9.2 billion is being invested in the Olympic games. Today, more than 900 residents of Newham, my borough, are working on the construction of the Olympic park and Olympic village, and there are 2,300 from the five Olympic host boroughs as a whole. I am pleased that the great majority are being paid at least the London living wage, and I particularly commend efforts such as those of Bovis BeOnsite and Newham council’s Workplace initiative with Jobcentre Plus, which have successfully targeted local unemployed people to work on the project.
A couple of weeks ago, I went to Westfield Stratford—the stunning retail development alongside the Olympic park, which will be the largest urban shopping centre in Europe when it opens next September, providing jobs for 12,000 full and part-time staff. At the moment, there are 70,000 jobs in the borough of Newham, so 12,000 new ones will be an enormous boost. The idea of that centre was around before the decision to bring the games to London, but given the form in which it has been realised and the speed at which it has been implemented, it is a very important element of the Olympic legacy. I vividly remember the dismay locally when Marks & Spencer pulled out of Stratford in the 1980s—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) remembers as well, so the return of Marks & Spencer to Newham when Westfield Stratford opens will be a welcome boost.
During the next year or two, it will be very important to ensure that people who live in the Olympic host boroughs enjoy their full share of the employment and other opportunities that are created. I shall mention just one idea that I have been talking about to people. Newham is home to people with roots in every country of the world. In too many cases, people are unable to find work. During the games, we shall be hosting visitors from literally every country in the world, and I hope that we shall be able to establish a location where people living locally can set up stalls for modest restaurant businesses to provide cooked food from their home countries, which would help to make visitors to the games feel welcome and create new jobs for local residents. I hope that we can establish that food court in good time for the games and that it can become a permanent feature of the area. There are a number of locations where it might be established.
I want to refer to a particular issue that will be addressed early in the new year: the future of the Olympic stadium. I was present last night, together with the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, at the ceremony to switch on the lights in the Olympic stadium for the first time. It was an opportunity to admire the splendour of the stadium now that all the seats have been fitted and to appreciate—it was certainly the first time that I had been able to do so—what an extremely impressive venue it is, even when it is covered in snow.
I support the proposal submitted by West Ham United football club, together with the London borough of Newham, for West Ham to take over the stadium after the games. For more than 100 years, since not long after the club was established—it emerged in 1900 from the Thames Ironworks football club—the club’s ground has been at Upton Park in East Ham, in my constituency, rather than in West Ham. Of course, if and when it moves, we in East Ham shall miss it, but I am convinced that that is the right solution. I appreciate that the Minister has no formal say in the matter, but I hope that he will agree that the West Ham solution is the right one for the Olympic stadium.
I shall suggest three reasons why the West Ham solution is right. First, it honours our obligations to the Olympic movement and fulfils the commitment to a strong sporting legacy, which was the basis on which the London bid was successful. Secondly, it offers the best opportunities to the community in east London in which the stadium is located. Thirdly, it is a financially robust bid based on a sound business case.
I shall start with our obligations to the Olympic movement. The Minister will have seen the recent open letter from Olympic and Paralympic medallists, with more than 40 games medals between them, calling for the retention of the athletics track in the stadium. West Ham is committed to retaining it to secure a national athletics centre; the alternative bidders, Spurs, would remove it.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there has been some confusion about the athletics legacy, it clearly is the strong viewpoint of the athletics industry, the international Olympic movement and everyone associated with this venture that athletics will continue at the stadium?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right. That view is strongly held by the International Association of Athletics Federations and UK Athletics. Also, when the bid was submitted, a promise was made—it was a significant element of the bid—to retain athletics in the stadium beyond the games, and that promise will be broken if the track is removed. It is very important that we do not let that happen. My hon. Friend is right to underline how strong feelings about that subject are.
An open letter from the athletes sets out their position. They said:
“One of the most compelling aspects of our bid back in 2005 was the promise of an athletics legacy in the form of a world class stadium. This promise made the idea of legacy real. It showed that the Games would continue to touch the wider community long after the Olympics and Paralympic spectacular had left town.”
The letter was signed by a bevy of famous names, including Steve Cram, Tanni Grey-Thompson, Kelly Holmes and Daley Thompson. They are right—we should not break the promise that has been made. The provision of a world-class athletics track in the stadium after the games was one reason why the UK bid secured the crucial support ahead of the 2005 decision of Lamine Diack, the president of the International Association of Athletics Federations, and it is why the West Ham-Newham bid has the support of UK Athletics as well.
The proposal offers additional sporting benefits. It has the support of Essex county cricket club, which wants to be able to use the stadium, too. It will also be used for rugby. The bid is also being supported by Live Nation, the world’s biggest live events company, which describes the stadium as
“a superb venue for hosting major concerts and other events”.
Secondly, the bid represents the right solution for the local community, which is why the local authority is supporting it. The stadium will inspire learning and achievement, with thousands of local young people visiting each year to make use of its facilities. The university of East London and Newham college of further education will also have a role. The stadium’s legacy will include a studio school focused on sport and leisure, and the West Ham Playing for Success centre will relocate there.
West Ham has a thriving community sports trust involving 3,700 local people a week, and that will be strengthened further by a move to the Olympic stadium. Its training and mentoring scheme has produced 36 fully qualified coaches, all of whom were recruited from the borough. It has delivered PE at key stage 2 of the national curriculum to more than 50,000 pupils at the club’s Beckton training centre. The Minister has visited the centre, after which he rightly praised it for
“empowering young Londoners to take responsibility through sport and education”.
West Ham’s Asians in Football project engages with more than 36,000 youngsters a year and has been recognised and acknowledged by the Football Association as a national example of effective integration practice. Its multi-sports project delivers 14 sports in addition to football across the borough, and multi-sports coaching is provided to a wide range of people with disabilities. The British Heart Foundation recognises the men’s health project at West Ham for its engagement of men in a fitness and exercise programme.
There are discussions about using the stadium to widen cultural activities in Newham—the CREATE festival, arts development for local residents, and concerts and community music events—and it potentially has rehearsal space for local groups such as East London Dance. Such a full link to the local community would strengthen the potential for the health element of the proposals on the Olympic polyclinic. The bid’s success will boost jobs locally. Half the 1,000 hospitality and safety staff at Upton Park on a match day are from the local area, and that number is likely to grow if the bid is successful.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the West Ham bid largely involves the use of much of the existing stadium, while the alternative bid from Tottenham Hotspur involves dismantling the stadium? I know that he has immense Treasury experience, so does he think that destroying £500 million of taxpayers’ money to set about something new can be good value for money at this time of fiscal austerity?
Stephen Timms
I think that it would be a tragic waste of the investment that has been made and of the superb facility that we saw last night. It would be tragic if the facility was there simply for the brief period of the games. My right hon. Friend is right to underline the importance of retaining what has been achieved, which is impressive.
One thing that struck me at last night’s ceremony was the strength of local support for, and engagement with, what is happening in the Olympic park. Tessa Sanderson was there with a group of local young people who are training at her academy to compete in the 2012 games, and other local interests were also present. I hope that that local commitment will be harnessed to make the most of the stadium’s future with the existing building. We should not tear it down and start again, and the West Ham bid is best placed to achieve that.
West Ham’s Upton Park ground is in my constituency, and, as a local resident, I will be sad to see it go after more than 100 years. However, access to the new venue will be much better, especially by public transport, and the existing site could be redeveloped in a way that would strengthen the local community and the neighbouring shopping centre in Green street. The site would be very restricted if the club envisaged further development.
Thirdly, the West Ham bid makes business sense. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) pointed out, it does not involve tearing down a structure built with substantial public investment. The capital costs that the project would entail would be met from a combination of the funding made available by the Olympic Delivery Authority, the receipts from the disposal of the current ground at Upton Park and a loan facility provided through Newham council—not a grant, as has been suggested in some quarters, but a loan. The club has been able to show how it will meet its continuing liabilities, even in the highly unlikely event that its recent run of poor results continues and it spends next season in the championship, which I hope will not happen. For all three reasons—honouring our Olympic commitments, achieving a local solution and because the bid makes business sense—I hope that the West Ham bid for the future use of the stadium is successful.
Finally, I want to comment on the sporting legacy of the Olympic games, and the partial U-turn we saw from the Government yesterday when they reinstated at least some of the funding for school sport partnerships. We all agree that inspiring and supporting young people to be active in sport should be—must be—one of the biggest prizes from the 2012 games. It is welcome that the Government will not withdraw the funding entirely, following protests from schools and sports people, but it looks as though there will still be a drastic cut in funding for school sports—I have heard suggestions of an 80% cut.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
If I get the opportunity to catch your eye, Miss McIntosh, I will comment on the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks, but on the school sport partnerships, does he accept that he might be slightly misrepresenting the situation? He has failed to take into account that by removing the ring fence that was applied to school sport partnerships, some of the money that was originally there has gone into schools, and, therefore, will still be available for them to buy into the network. We all agree that it was right to preserve the funding in the form that it is now in.
Stephen Timms
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point about the importance of retaining the partnerships, but I do not and cannot share his confidence that the funding will be used in the way he suggests. The Minister might be able to shed some light on this, but I gather that funding for some specialist sports, such as judo, boxing and fencing, may be removed altogether, which would substantially reduce the choice of sport available to young people. The concern that I put to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) is that confidence has been damaged because the funding is not secure. I am told by schools in my area that the confidence in the arrangements has been quite badly undermined, and it is not clear that yesterday’s announcement will repair it. I hope that it will, at least partially, but it is not clear that it has.
The co-ordination resource for the network of more than 1.5 million young people involved in sports leadership and volunteering appears also to be under threat. It is impressive that the number of sports volunteers almost doubled in the past three years, thanks to policies that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood put in place, but it is hard to see how what has happened can do anything other than constrain that important element of the Olympic legacy.
I have been speaking to the head teacher of Langdon school in my constituency, which is a successful sports specialist college that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood knows. Ten years ago, it was a pioneer for the school sport partnerships, and a large group of young people from that school was part of the London bid team at the meeting of the International Olympic Committee in Singapore in July 2005. My right hon. Friend will acknowledge that their youthful enthusiasm, showcasing the diversity of today’s young London, played an important part in winning the games for the United Kingdom. Today, Langdon is part of a thriving sport partnership of seven secondary schools and 30 primary schools. The benefits of the partnerships are not just sporting in nature; there is close work with feeder primary schools to support children in their academic work, particularly in the primary to secondary transition. The partnership also strengthens the ties between the schools and sports clubs in the community. It supports inter-school competitions. I have heard some criticisms that the partnership has not supported inter-school competitions. The partnership to which I am referring certainly has a large number of competitive inter-school events as part of it. It has coaching programmes to help senior students to gain skills and qualifications for future sports leadership roles.
The head teacher of Langdon, Dr Tabassum, wrote to the Prime Minister 10 days ago, making the point:
“As for the Olympic legacy, we can only fully realise the potential of London 2012 and the inspiration it offers by maximising the development systems that we have been creating and developing over the past decade through our established Schools Sports Partnerships.”
Of course, the school welcomes the reinstatement since that letter was written of some of the funding, although it is not yet clear to it how much of the activity can be retained. Dr Tabassum makes the point that announcing a complete withdrawal of funding was very damaging to the confidence in schools—primary and secondary—in what they had been doing and was damaging to their commitment.
The Olympic games, in 18 months’ time, present a huge opportunity for the UK. It is particularly important that their potential be harnessed to create new opportunities for people living close to the park in east London. In that light, I hope that the West Ham bid for the stadium is successful and that it will be possible for the school programmes, which can underpin the future sporting legacy for the UK, to be sustained after the raid on them over the past couple of months by the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Education.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate. I am sure he is excited at the prospect of the Olympics being held in his backyard—a much-deprived part of east London that he has represented with great distinction over the past decade and a half.
Financial concerns were always at the heart of the issue for those of us who expressed some doubts, prior to 6 July 2005, about the wisdom of the London bid for the Olympics. Those doubts have not been entirely assuaged by the passage of time. We should face facts: we have the Olympics and we have to make the best of it. There is no doubt that, with all the planning in place, it will be a great, spectacular three-week festival in August 2012. However, that should not be at the expense of the legacy. When £9.2 billion of public money is being expended on the Olympics games, there ought to be a long-term physical legacy of interest. I shall touch on that in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman understandably talked much about the future of the stadium. I very much share his views and concerns about what might happen. As vice-chairman of the all-party group on football, I believe that it would be right for West Ham to have the stadium, rather than it going further afield to Tottenham Hotspur. I understand many of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on this matter. In 1997, I was my party’s candidate in Enfield North, where I reckoned at least two-thirds of the football fans were Spurs, rather than Arsenal supporters. I remember that in the Lea Valley area of the constituency there was a great passion for and pride in Tottenham Hotspur. For many football fans across the country, the notion of Tottenham Hotspur moving 4 or 5 miles away might seem to involve a small distance, but in the context of the villages that make up London it is very important. People would quickly forget the long-term history based around White Hart Lane.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that West Ham are an east London team, Tottenham are a north London team, and that the Olympic stadium is in east London?
Mr Field
I am sure that, as an expert on postcodes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although one might ask, where does east turn to north? We will not go down that route, but he makes a good point. It would be encouraging for Twenty20 cricket in particular if Essex used that stadium. It is a tragedy that Essex have not regularly played cricket at either Valentine’s Park in Ilford or at Leyton, which still has a beautiful historic 1930s pavilion, for 20 or 30 years. It would be great to see the stadium being used for that purpose.
The right hon. Member for East Ham hit the nail right on the head in relation to the short-term issues that affect West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur. It would be a great shame to look at this matter just in the context of where the two clubs are at the moment. I fear that I may be less of an optimist about the Hammers’ chances over the next four or five months, as they might well end up a championship club with financial problems in the very short term by the time the season ends in May. Tottenham Hotspur are having one of their most successful seasons since 1960-61, when they won the double. They now understandably regard themselves as a champions league team: they are in the last 16 and may well qualify as of right for the champions league next season. Therefore, there would be great passion for the idea of having a big stadium, not just because the Olympic stadium has a capacity of 60,000—well above the 37,000 to 38,000 at White Hart Lane—but because it will be seen as iconic. However, I strongly believe that that would be a short-term decision made with the facts of December 2010 and 2011 in mind, rather than the long-term historical perspective pointed out by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).
I want to say a few words in passing about the commitment we are making to the Olympic movement with our bid. The right hon. Members for East Ham and for Tottenham, and the Minister, will have seen the well-researched, quite provocative article in The Spectator of 11 December, “The true cost of the Olympics”. Following a number of freedom of information requests, Ed Howker and Andrew Gilligan went into some detail about the precise nature of the commitment that we have made to the International Olympic Committee. We are now in a very different era—an era of austerity—from that we were in five and half years ago when we won the Olympic bid. The article identified some ludicrous situations: the money to be spent on having some 40,000 hotel rooms booked for IOC flunkies over three weeks in August 2012; the somewhat absurd brand-protection rights that are being insisted upon, not just in the Olympic stadium, but within a large, well-defined curtilage in that part of London. As Mr Howker and Mr Gilligan put it, there will almost be a “state within a state” in London during that month in 2012.
I firmly believe that the very scarce financial resources that we have for the Olympic games must not be used simply to placate the desire of a vast International Olympic Committee quangocracy. I want to see a much bigger and a proper legacy for the locality, particularly in that part of east London.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the injection of £6.1 billion into the UK national economy at a time of downturn was valuable? More than 1,000 small and medium-sized businesses around the country have benefited from that. The costs in relation to Olympic hospitality that Mr Gilligan refers to will be borne not by the taxpayer, but by the organising committee, a private company whose funds are privately raised.
Mr Field
That is fair as far as it goes. As the right hon. Lady says, funds have been raised privately through a lot of Olympic sponsors, but there is still a defined amount that the sponsors will put into the Olympics. In the era of austerity in which we live, I have to question whether some boondoggle for the IOC is the right place to put this, rather than the long-term physical legacy for the east end. We have perhaps not discussed that in as much detail in this debate, although I know there will be other opportunities to do so during the next 18 months.
It would be a crying shame if we were not to have a strong physical legacy. We have looked at other Olympic games—whether it be Athens in 2004 or Sydney in 2000—where, I am afraid and whether we like it or not, the Olympic villages were built in relatively impoverished areas and ended up being something of a white elephant. If that happened in London it would be a tragic waste.
In fairness to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), she made great steps forward, particularly to ensure that a proper transport infrastructure is in place, bringing the Docklands light railway right into the heart of the Olympic village. I hope that that will ensure that the same does not come to pass in this country in the aftermath of August 2012.
However, it is vital that we see a proper and fully fledged regeneration. The right hon. Member for East Ham knows that on many statistical analyses his borough of Newham is one of the poorest in the UK. He and I no doubt share the view that if one walks down East Ham high street or through bits of Upton Park, there is a sense of vibrancy with people wanting to sell things. The borough is not poor and impoverished in terms of ambition and aspiration, which is a positive way forward.
I hope that we will focus our attention—not just in the next 18 months, but, probably more importantly, in the few years after 2012—on ensuring that that area of London becomes very desirable. It will inevitably be a mixed area, with both private estates and social housing. I hope that it will become a tremendously successful area for the future. In my view, the real test of the success of the Olympics is where we will be in 10 years’ time, not in 18 months. If we can see that that area has been entirely regenerated, and is vibrant and thriving with a desirable residential sector, a retail park, which we will see with Westfield in Stratford, and many small thriving businesses—dare I say it, particularly in the high-tech area where there will be a knock-on effect from what we already have in Shoreditch—that will be the real success of the Olympic games, rather than just the short-term spectacle, which will, I am sure, be a tremendous success and a tremendous credit to this country and our city.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I welcome you, Miss McIntosh, on what I think is your first time in the Chair in Westminster Hall. It is good to see you. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber today as we approach Christmas and for illustrating that what lies behind sport, whether it is athletics or football, is hugely important to some of the poorest areas of London and of this country. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for his remarks on the West Ham and Spurs bids.
Let me go back to 6 July 2005 when we won the bid to host the Olympics. I will never forget that weekend. As Minister for Culture, I was very fortunate to be in Trafalgar square as the results were announced. I had a wonderful few years working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), my very good friend, when she was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I saw the huge preparation that this country put into that bid and, I might say, fantastic leadership from my right hon. Friend. Many others provided leadership, too, but I was working closely with her at the time.
That weekend was a very poignant, because the day after the Olympics announcement London faced the most terrible atrocity—the London bombings—in which I lost a very dear friend. That weekend reminded us about the importance of multicultural London.
I remember also the Inspire video that was very much part of that bid. It was a wonderful production—I am sure it is still available on the web—that was directed by Daryl Goodrich. In that video, we see the fantastic sight of young people from across the world. Hon. Members will understand that, representing Tottenham, I felt very close to those young people because many of them make their way through different refugee channels or immigration routes to our great city, so somehow they were connected to that aspiration. We won that bid on a vision of very poor young people from across the world. I particularly remember the visions of Africa and Asia, dreaming and aspiring for something special in relation to the Olympics. We also won the bid because we were committed—particularly to young people in the east end and in communities such as mine—to setting a vision of what the Olympics and athletics could be about. It was on the back of those two things that we won this great prize. I remember when the word “London” was said and we secured the bid.
At the time, when I stood there feeling tremendous pride in the fact that sport brings opportunity to communities such as mine, I could not have imagined that, five years later, I would be participating in a debate about my constituency potentially being on the brink of losing one of its great beacons—our football club, Tottenham Hotspur. I say that as someone who grew up in Tottenham. I was always aware that when someone left the N17 postcode area and went much beyond it, either in this country or abroad, two things might be mentioned: the Tottenham riots—our shoulders sink at that and we feel a bit uneasy—and that wonderful vision of our football club.
I remember 1981, when Spurs won the FA Cup against Manchester City. Ricky Villa scored two goals and Garth Crooks scored another. I was a young nine-year-old born to West Indian parents from Guyana. Ricky Villa is from Argentina, so we adopted him as a South American, and Garth Crooks, one of our pioneering black footballers, scored a goal, so I felt tremendous pride. But that was against a backdrop in Tottenham of unemployment, serious grief, anguish and problems in relation to the police, and then, sadly, there unfolded some of the worst atrocities that we saw on the streets of London in our 20th-century history.
In our community, Spurs and football allow us to dream of what is possible. They bring us close to excellence and dedication. We see the commitment that young sportsmen and women put into becoming elite sports people, and that connects us with a standard that is not just local, but national and international. That is why it is so important that, when we consider the broader ecology of London, we do nothing that benefits one part of the city and, frankly, dumps on another part.
Northumberland Park is one of the very poorest wards in London. Unemployment there is just below 12%. Life expectancy is 10 years lower than it is 5 miles away in the other part of Haringey, Muswell Hill and Highgate. It is a ward with much deprivation. I am talking about not just Northumberland Park, but Edmonton, which borders it, and the London borough of Enfield. Hon. Members will understand that, because Tottenham rubs up close to that other, much smaller and less distinguished north London club, Arsenal, many Tottenham supporters hail from the London borough of Enfield.
Tottenham is not a club that one would greatly associate—I say this very gently—with some of the racism that has dogged other clubs in the premiership and in this country. The history of our bit of north London is very much a united history. The club includes West Indians who made their way to this country in the 1950s. There is a strong Jewish community, which is largely situated around Stamford Hill, although it stretches across to Golders Green, Finchley and parts of Enfield. There is also a strong Irish and white working-class community. All those groups have stood at White Hart Lane—very much in solidarity, always honouring and celebrating multiculturalism.
That is very special about Spurs, and probably about the north London tradition of football, which also includes teams such as Arsenal, Barnet and Enfield Town. We are very proud of that tradition, and it, too, is a symbol that we offer our young people. I think particularly of Northumberland Park school, which is just next door to Spurs on the site. The school has struggled with immense challenges. Some 40% of its young people get five good A to C grades. I also think of a school such as St Thomas More, just across the way in Wood Green. It has made sport its specialism, so how important it is to the school that Spurs is among the community.
It is important that I pay tribute to the work that Spurs have done while I have been the area’s Member of Parliament. The Tottenham Hotspur Foundation is a beacon in the premiership. The commitment that Spurs have shown to the wider community—not only in Haringey, but in Enfield, Barnet and Waltham Forest—is tremendous. The club is working not only with young people in our schools, but with pensioners and the disabled, and it is getting match funding. It is making a huge investment in local people and stretching the reach of elite sport deeper and further, so that we can lift up our deprived community.
The area represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham is identical to mine, so when he spoke of the Olympic stadium’s proximity to, and relationship with, his constituency and the schools within it, I completely understood how important the future of the stadium is to West Ham and to East Ham, up there in east London. I understood the vital role that it will play.
I have worked with Spurs; indeed, I worked on setting up the foundation. I have supported the club, as a constituency MP does, in the many immigration cases involving footballers coming into and going out of the country. The club also wanted to build a training ground in Enfield, and I was very supportive of that. In addition, it has exciting, truly exceptional plans to redevelop its stadium in Tottenham, and one can see those plans on the club’s website. The club put its planning application in to the local authority in May, it was approved in September and the Mayor has signed it off. We therefore have plans for an exciting new stadium in Tottenham, and those plans are supported by the local community. We have a new vision for a new period, building on 111 years of history.
Hon. Members will therefore understand how confused, upset and concerned my constituents were when they found out just a few weeks ago that the club was running a parallel track and also putting in for the Olympic stadium. I have spoken to the club’s chairman about that, and he has explained to me that it is important that he look at the Olympic stadium and consider its importance in relation to the club’s shareholder value. I have to recognise that, but it is my responsibility as the custodian of the community to remind the club and the politicians—in the end, they will make the decision, and here I look to the Minister—that sport does not come out of nowhere.
Tottenham folk have funded the club for 111 years. Also, it is always a great honour to bump into people who, although they may not have funded the club themselves, had grandparents who lived in Tottenham. Indeed, Lord Triesman’s grandparents lived in Tottenham, and there are always stories like that. Although someone might not live in Tottenham, they travel there because they have a connection to the area, and it would be a tremendous wrench if that were to be yanked from them.
When we look at the future regeneration and ecology of sport in London, it is our responsibility—I direct these comments also at the Mayor—to recognise that there is much to do in the east as regards the Olympic stadium and the West Ham bid. The future of athletics is also hugely important in that regard. However, we must also acknowledge that there is still a tremendous amount to do in my constituency and in the Enfield constituencies. That is why I have campaigned for many years with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) for improved transport links. I wanted a Victoria line extension to link us up in a much bigger way—not only for the sake of the club, but for regeneration in my very poor part of London. I remind hon. Members that my constituency is the second poorest in London. That is hugely important.
What will be the prospects for Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield if the club makes this drastic switch? Such a decision would also be a great shame for West Ham over the next decade, because it would clearly cause the club great financial harm. That would be a real tragedy for the ecology of the premiership.
The Government face a very big decision, and I hope that they will reflect very hard when they get the recommendation from the Olympic Legacy Trust. It does not make sense to spend taxpayers’ money on a stadium—obviously, as a Minister in the Department at the time, I know that the amount involved was in part disputed, although I suspect that it is not any longer—and then destroy it four weeks later. That would resurrect real concerns about value for money. I suspect that the National Audit Office would want to look into it, and colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee certainly would.
At this time, when MPs such as I are seeing cuts to education maintenance allowance for our young people, the extension of tuition fees, cuts to housing benefit, hikes in unemployment and cuts to the future jobs fund, it cannot make sense to dismantle a stadium in that way. I must put that in the strongest possible terms.
It is also important that the Minister listen to fans and not just the club’s current custodians. I have seen the club change hands twice in my period as an MP and four times in my lifetime. Tottenham fans are already concerned about what is happening, and well over 4,000 have signed a petition. It is true that most think this will not happen. Most Spurs fans think, “Oh, this is a try-on, it can’t be serious.” Well, if it is serious that would be a great travesty.
I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he say something about the timetable for the decision? I am informed that the Olympic Legacy Trust board will meet on 28 January and hopes to make a recommendation to him after that. Will he confirm that the decision will be his, alongside the Mayor and the appropriate Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government? Who else will make that decision? Will he also confirm that he would expect the club to pay a bond, deposit or guarantee in the event of it winning, so in that sense the decision would be final? For example, West Ham would not be able to win the bid and say a few weeks later, “We’ve changed our minds and we want to stay at Upton Park,” and Spurs could not win and say a few weeks later, “Oh, we changed our mind and we want to stay at White Hart Lane.” That would make this a moment of urgency for both clubs as they reflect on their future. I am grateful for the opportunity to put those remarks on the record.
Miss Anne McIntosh (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to try to give everyone who wants to speak an opportunity to do so. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) informed me in advance that he would like to speak, so I shall try to fit in the last two speakers in the 10 minutes after he has spoken.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate and on introducing the important topic of the legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. It is important to stress that both are included; often the Paralympics are overlooked.
The issue of the legacy is crucial because, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) said, the Olympics are not about a few exciting weeks of sporting and cultural extravaganza in London and a few other places. They are about the legacy that can come from the work that is being done and has been done; as the hon. Gentleman said, the real judgment about whether we have succeeded will be made in 10 years’ time. I was lucky enough to be in Singapore, and I saw the brilliant work that Seb Coe and his team did in inspiring the world to get behind us, support our bid and ensure our success, when Jacques Rogge pulled London’s name from the envelope—it took him an interminable time to do it. The fact that I and the Minister—who at that time was the Opposition spokesman—were there showed how from the very beginning support for the Olympics and Paralympics has been cross-party. It is important to recognise that although I may have disagreed with the previous Government in some matters, broadly speaking everyone has worked together.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who in her role as Secretary of State and Olympics Minister did a huge amount of work to drive forward the preparation for the games and to build up the plans for a lasting legacy. The one area that rarely gets touched on, although it featured heavily in the bid—in the inspiring videos referred to by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—is the issue of inspiring the world. Everyone will remember how we made a commitment to use the games to inspire the world to get involved in sporting activity and all the benefits that come from it. The right hon. Lady deserves huge credit for her work in establishing the International Inspiration scheme, which has been so successful, and which helps our work in the aid programme in many places around the world. I have been particularly impressed by something with the awful acronym ICES—the International community Coach Education Standards—which has brought people from all around the world together to share expertise in developing coaching skills. That is part of the legacy that is often forgotten.
The right hon. Member for East Ham put forward a powerful case for the West Ham solution for the future of the stadium. His arguments about the business case and the huge business benefits for his community and the surrounding area were very powerful. However, the most powerful argument of all is the simple one concerning the commitment made at the time of the bid, that there would continue to be an athletics track there, and opportunities for an athletics centre of excellence. The decision is with another body, not the Government, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be successful and that that is the solution that will be reached. It is interesting to hear two Members supporting major football clubs who have both reached the same conclusion, despite representing very different parts of London. The right hon. Gentleman’s case is powerful, but of course we shall have to wait and see. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
While we are inspiring people around the world, it is interesting to note that we are still inspiring people in this country. Tens of thousands of people have already given their names as potential volunteers to help during the Olympics and Paralympics. That is very encouraging. Two million people have already registered on the tickets website, which shows that there will be very significant take-up by people from within the UK, who want to come and enjoy the games. However, the legacy is about many things. Of course it is to do with the issue that the right hon. Member for East Ham raised about buildings and what is happening in the east end of London, but we must not forget that there has been regeneration elsewhere as well; for example, in Weymouth, the centre for sailing. That is very important. Also there will be a legacy from the significant improvements being made to transport systems in London. The right hon. Member for Tottenham may have wanted even more, but let us not forget that those improvements will produce a significant legacy.
There will be a real legacy in business and employment, as has already been mentioned. Huge numbers of contracts have gone out through the Olympic Delivery Authority for building the Olympic site and the Olympic village, which in turn will provide the legacy of more affordable housing—urgently needed in that part of London. There are opportunities still to come, even though the site is nearly complete. There will be opportunities in the contracts to be awarded through the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. In the next 12 months there will be £250 million of contracts, for everything from seating to whistles and DayGlo vests and there will be job opportunities from security to ticketing; the list goes on. There will be a large number of opportunities. What is pleasing is that well over 50% of the £450 million of LOCOG contracts that have already been awarded, or that are being finalised, have gone to small and medium-sized businesses, many of which are in London. That is of real benefit to those businesses. Very pleasingly, 95% of the contracts have gone to organisations, businesses and companies in the United Kingdom; it has been a real opportunity. I was interested to see that even the Royal Mint has got in on the act, with the contract to provide the 2,700 medals that will be needed for the games.
There are a couple of areas of concern. The first is to do with the legacy that we hope to get from tourism. We all understand that we are in financially difficult circumstances. I do not want to argue about who is responsible for that, but we all know the situation. It is understandable that budgets and funding, even to tourism organisations, have had to take their share of cuts. However, there is one thing I am particularly concerned about. The Government, rightly in my view, propose to end the regional development agencies and replace them with local enterprise partnerships. Those will in many cases—they will decide—have responsibility for tourism. Unfortunately, however, we will have a gap between the ending of the work that is being done by the RDAs and the work that will begin to be done by the local enterprise partnerships. In that gap of up to two years, tourism may lose out if action is not taken.
In my region, the South West of England RDA established South West Tourism, which did a lot of important work to promote tourism in our region. However, the contract for that work cannot be renewed and it comes to an end on 31 March 2011, even though the RDA does not end for another 12 months after that. Because the contract cannot be renewed, that work will finish. The South West RDA maintained one responsibility in-house, which was for marketing, including tourism marketing, but because all marketing by the RDA has already ceased, tourism marketing in the south-west has already ceased, too.
There is a real problem with the gap between the ending of the RDAs and the formation of the local enterprise partnerships. What will happen during that gap in respect of tourism, which seems to be crucial in the run-up to 2012?
The other area where I have some concern is the school sport partnerships, although I am delighted that there have been some recent announcements about them, which were referred to by the right hon. Member for East Ham. I am very supportive of the coalition Government, but I stood up in a debate on the Floor of the House to point out that I was deeply concerned that while money was to be transferred to schools through the ending of ring-fencing—something I very much welcome—there was still a problem, in that schools did not know what their budgets were. Therefore, they did not know whether they could use any of that money to support sporting activity, and we would have had a situation where the framework of support provided by the SSPs would have disappeared long before the schools could decide whether to put money into them.
As I said on the Floor of the House, it seemed absolutely critical that we maintained a framework that would enable schools, when they knew what their funding allocation was, to determine whether to put money into SSPs; if not, clearly we would have to look for other solutions anyway. I am pleased that a decision was made to find a way of maintaining that framework.
However, I put it to the Minister that we can still go further to make the network more secure; I genuinely believe that we can do that. The other organisations that are already operating very successfully indeed are the county sports partnerships. In some cases, the SSPs are already linked to the county sports partnerships and it seems to me that we could strengthen the framework for schools to bid into by examining ways of more effectively merging the activities of the county sports partnerships and the SSPs, to enable them to do their incredibly valuable work. More work needs to be done in that regard.
I want to be brief, so I shall end by saying just one more thing. Very often, when we talk about legacy, we do exactly what I have just done; we refer to “legacy” in different pots, whether it is building legacy, transport legacy, tourism legacy or sporting legacy, but very often, the truth is rather different—they are all interlinked. The work that we have been doing in the west of England, where I have the honour to be the co-chair of Team West of England, involves finding ways of integrating all the legacy issues. For example, we have got the British Paralympic Association to use the wonderful facilities at Bath university as their training ground. That has not just been good for Bath university; it has been good for local businesses, hotels and bed and breakfasts, and many other service industries in the area. That project is bringing all these things together.
In the same way, when the very first training camp deal was done by Bristol university to bring the Kenyan team in, the university had a 10-point plan, of which the Kenyan team coming to train in Bristol in the run-up to the 2012 games was the last item. The other items were much more about developing links between Bristol and places in Kenya, including schools links, business links, professional team links and so on. Those are the sorts of things that we can still do and that we need to do much more of. However, I am very optimistic that we shall have a great legacy from what will be a fantastic set of Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012.
Miss Anne McIntosh (in the Chair)
We have six minutes left for two speakers, before I call the Front-Bench spokesmen.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Miss McIntosh, and may I welcome you to the Chair?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate. Unusually, I make a declaration. It is not in the register, but I have to declare an interest as a Tottenham fan, although my focus in this debate is on what is in the best interests of supporters.
I have only three minutes to speak, so I will restrict my remarks. I agreed with much of what has been said in the debate today, particularly that there needs to be a long-term legacy; it is not just about what happens in the short term.
As I see it, there are four issues in relation to the legacy of the Olympic stadium. First, we need a world-class stadium; secondly, the stadium needs to combine community use with athletics; thirdly, it needs to provide diversity, by staging other types of events, including concerts, and fourthly, of course, the issue of viability has come to the fore. We know what has happened in previous instances with other Olympic games. Indeed, I was interested to see that, at the short-listing for the bidding, the chair of the company said that the company was obviously looking for an anchor tenant, but that it was interested in mixed use and that there should be a legacy for athletics. Those will be important considerations.
First of all, we need a world-class stadium. The contentious issue is whether the track should be retained. We have arranged our bid on the basis of commitments to the International Olympic Committee; indeed, the athletes’ letter, which was mentioned earlier, talked about that issue. Of course, the legacy company reaffirmed that.
In relation to athletics events and community use, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham ticked all the boxes as far as West Ham is concerned. The real concern is the decision by Spurs to demolish the stadium and replace it with an exact replica of the one they intend to build in Northumberland Park. In order to address the issue of the athletics legacy, Spurs has come up with the idea of refurbishing Crystal Palace. I do not have time to go into the details, but the reality is that it is not in the most deprived part of London, where the original commitment was given. We need to continue to reaffirm that commitment. Currently the proposal does not match the criteria.
The importance of other sports and cultural uses goes without saying. How do we ensure that schools and others can use the stadium in the future? There are real difficulties. The Spurs bid is very commercially oriented and I worry about how that would fit with the other types of events that are being suggested for the stadium.
Finally, on viability, the Spurs bid is viable; that is clearly the case and I am sure that, as has been suggested, the West Ham bid is also viable. However, we need to take account of the fact that it is very much option B for Spurs. Option A is the new stadium in Tottenham. That proposal has been cleared by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Mayor of London and the planning authority. It is also supported by Spurs fans, not only the “We are N17” group but supporters in N18, N9, and EN3 in my constituency and indeed in the whole of Enfield. There are long-term historical ties; the club would not be Tottenham Hotspur if it was not in Tottenham. Those are important considerations for the club.
However, in the interests of time, let me end by saying that I hope the Minister will indicate how the committee responsible for choosing the successful bidder is looking upon the different bids.
Miss Anne McIntosh (in the Chair)
I call Mike Gapes, who has two minutes in which to speak.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, begin by declaring an interest. I am desperate for West Ham to win at Fulham on Boxing day and then at home to Everton and at home to Wolves. I have been a season ticket-holder in the Bobby Moore stand for many years. I have supported the club for 50 years and I know that there is a long tradition of fans being attached to our current ground. Indeed, there are some West Ham fans who do not want West Ham to move to the Olympic stadium either.
However, the fact is that if West Ham moves to the Olympic stadium site, it will fulfil not only the commitment made to athletics, but for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has given, it will be a commitment to the regeneration of east London and to the priorities of the community there.
If Tottenham Hotspur moves, it will be like Milton Keynes Dons; presumably, the team will rebrand itself as the “Stratford Spurs”. It will become a peripatetic football team, losing its roots and traditions. By contrast, if West Ham moves, it will still be a team from the east end, a team in the borough of Newham and a team with roots in the community, proud to have the claret and blue flying over the Olympic stadium in Stratford and proud to serve the community of east London, including the community in Ilford, where I live and where my constituency is located.
There are a few Tottenham fans in Ilford—not many—but I have not found a single Tottenham fan who wishes to travel to Stratford to go to football matches. I believe that Spurs fans should continue to travel to N17 and West Ham fans should continue to travel to the east end, to grounds in the communities from which they come and which represent their values for the future. One real winner will come from the West Ham bid: the legacy. That is why it is important that West Ham and Newham council’s bid is successful.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I join others in welcoming you to the Chair for this debate, Miss McIntosh.
It was an enormous pleasure to be at the stadium yesterday as the lights were turned on and to see the spectacle of the virtually complete stadium. We saw the structural evidence of progress and had conversations with many of the work force who built the stadium. They took pride in having the opportunity to be part of it and to do something much more than just going to work. The Prime Minister made the point well yesterday that the whole country has built the stadium. The steel came from Bolton, the steel for the aquatic centre came from Newport, some of the planting came from Norfolk and the steel cabling came from Doncaster. Businesses all over the country will reflect with pride on their contribution to the Olympic park. Equally importantly, their order books have been kept busy during the downturn, and they have not had to lay off staff; in many cases, due to the mandate that supply chain contractors must build the skills of their work forces, they have hired apprentices whom they might not otherwise have hired.
The London that will greet the world in just over 18 months will perhaps be different from the stereotypes. It will not be a London of Beefeaters and well-recognised historic monuments but the London reflected in part in the Olympic bid that won us the games. Those young people from Langdon Park were the face of London, representing 20 nationalities and speaking 22 languages. The London that welcomes the world will be a creative London of diversity and tolerance. We will also be proud that businesses around the country have benefited from the investment.
I challenge the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field): I think that scepticism is always a good discipline in relation to such a big project. We won the bid because we said that these games would be the legacy games. We must be kept true to that ambition, which will continue to be realised long after the games are over. We will achieve things that we would never have achieved but for the Olympics and the scale of the ambition that has been unlocked: to be fourth in the Olympic medal table and second in the Paralympic medal table. Our two big legacy ambitions are to transform a generation of young people through sport, and to regenerate east London. Another is, through the Paralympics, to change for ever attitudes toward inclusion, the entitlement to a full place in our society and opportunities for disabled people.
The big and immediate challenge, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said clearly, is to reshape east London’s economy. This debate has been supported by many right hon. and hon. Members for whom that is a burning concern. I welcome the fact that the Olympic Park Legacy Company has taken a strong lead that can give us all confidence in the commercial future of the Olympic park. The ambition is that the Olympic boroughs, in which too many have been workless for too long, will become the digital equivalent of the square mile in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and that the economic heart of London will broaden to incorporate the entrepreneurial and creative talent of Hoxton and Shoreditch and the new studios and workshops of Hackney Wick. It is encouraging that there is already commercial interest in investing in the park. It demonstrates the lasting impact of the Olympics: the hard legacy of the park and the soft legacy of a local population better skilled to take the new jobs brought by the new investment.
Two years before the games, the private sector is already responding, even at this difficult time. Canadian pension funds are investing in Westfield Stratford City, which would not have happened without the games investment. Nine world finance groups are bidding for the athletes’ village, and we have heard plenty about the two remaining contenders for the Olympic stadium.
The important point is that the OPLC will decide whether the eventual winner of the competition provides good value for money in the broadest possible sense. It is also important that whichever club wins the prize, it does not crowd out or put at risk the potential for other investment. It is important that the stadium be reopened rapidly after the games, that the proposal be financially credible and that the community will not be bystanders pressing their noses against the plate glass that excludes them. They are entitled to be full citizens enjoying the park’s facilities. If the OPLC approaches the decision in that way and builds on the commitment to the legacy of jobs, the promise of the legacy will continue to be realised.
Will the Minister reassure us that there will be a continued drive to develop skills and new jobs despite the Government’s proposal to abolish the London Development Agency? Will they realise, as hon. Members have mentioned, the full impact of the tourism legacy?
On school sport, we welcome the second major legacy promise. Will the Minister assure us that in the context of an 80% reduction, the number and range of sports offered will not be reduced, that competitive sport will continue to increase and that the Government will move towards the target that we set in government of 60% of young people participating in at least five hours of sport a week?
The challenges are great, and it is right that there is a clear cross-party commitment to running the Olympic games. I conclude by paying tribute to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who speaks for the other part of the Tory-led coalition, for the way they sought to ensure, certainly during my time as Secretary of State, that we maintained that spirit, because London deserves it.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I join other Members in congratulating you on your debut appearance in the Chair in this Chamber, Miss McIntosh. No one has mentioned it, but we all ought to congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) who has just been elevated to the Privy Council.
I add my personal thanks to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) for the extraordinarily constructive and inclusive way she managed the process when she was in charge. The past six months must have been difficult for her; to start a project of that sort, be as closely involved as she was and then, for reasons beyond her control, see it pass to someone else must have been difficult. I simply say that I am grateful to her for everything she did and for the way she has conducted herself since. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate and on the way he made his points.
Given that time is short, I will try to answer the various questions that have been asked as best I can, rather than read the prepared speech, which I suspect might be rather familiar to the right hon. Lady. The right hon. Member for East Ham should have no fear about the political aspect, if that was a worry behind anything he said. The Olympic Park Legacy Company, chaired by Baroness Ford, is doing a fantastic job. She was appointed by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served and is a Labour peer—I think she may be a Cross Bencher now—so he should have no worries on the political front.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some good questions about jobs on the site. There are currently 10,333 people working either on the park or the village, of whom 25% and 29% respectively come from the six host boroughs. Genuine employment opportunities have been created, even before the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games brings forward its opportunities, or Westfield starts to recruit for the Stratford City development, which I am told will bring another 20,000 jobs to the area. If those forecasts are correct, the position looks reasonably promising. I enjoyed his suggestion about local residents and a local food court, and hope that he will manage to persuade his borough to take that up.
I absolutely take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s points about school sport. I think that we are all much happier with the position we are in now than the one we were in a week ago. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Education, it was a difficult decision. He had a budget that was subject to a 10% cut and had decided to hand the budgets over to schools, as the hon. Member for Bath noted. Once he had done that and given the schools a 0.1% increase above inflation, he was left with a very small pot, out of which he had to make his 10% cross-departmental cut. At the same time, he was trying to fund the pupil premium, which I guess will benefit many young men and women growing up in the borough of the right hon. Member for East Ham. It was an extremely tight financial settlement, and although I take on board the many points that have been made by the sports lobby, not a single one of them came forward and said, “Save this and cut the other”; it was all, “Save this spending”. Anyone who has had to go through a major deficit reduction plan will know the difficulties involved.
The stadium was the major part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. He made a powerful case for West Ham, but I hope that he will not be offended if I say that it was not the first time I have heard that speech, or indeed the counter-offer from north London. He is absolutely right to say that I visited the West Ham community scheme about a year and a half ago when I was in opposition. It is a powerful scheme that does fantastic work in the community, and I pay tribute to it again, as I did at the time.
We are currently in the middle of a legal process, so I am unable to say a great deal more about that now, but I will come on to the dates and who is making the decisions in a moment. Clearly, it is massively to the benefit of the public purse that two extremely good and competitive bids are going forward. If I were to comment in too much detail one way or the other, however, I would open myself up to judicial review. Having been a distinguished Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Gentleman will know that landing the Government in the High Court is not normally a role for junior Ministers, so I will leave it at that and simply say that the process is ongoing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) talked about the financial aspects. On the village, I can assure him that there are nine high-quality bids, as the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said. I do not think that I am breaking any confidences when I say that that was considerably more than we expected. There is a great deal of interest in what is being built on the park, and almost everyone who goes there is—to use a nasty, modern phrase—blown away by it. There is considerable investor interest in large parts of it, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is right about the hotel rooms; they are not being paid for from the public budget, and many of the bodies occupying them—the international federations and the rest—are simply billed for them. It is not some great state-sponsored beano in which people will be living at the Dorchester at huge public cost.
In a very good speech, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke of his passion for the bid. I was lucky enough to be with the hon. Member for Bath and the right hon. Lady in Singapore at the time, and I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham for the role he played. He made a powerful speech about Tottenham. I hope he will be impressed to know that I have also visited the Tottenham Hotspur community scheme; indeed, he will be doubly impressed to hear that I did so during black history week. There were many people in the stadium at Tottenham studying the very first black player to play for Tottenham.
Hugh Robertson
The very man. They had all drawn him, were learning about him and putting that into context. Crucially, I was told that there was a reading skills course, which I think had been running for seven weeks when I visited, and the average literacy age increased by 18 months over that period. It is a fantastic scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to it.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the time, but he will appreciate that the remarks I made earlier apply to what I can and cannot say about the process. He is absolutely right that the initial decision will be made by the OPLC board on 28 January. It will then be confirmed, and eventually due diligence will start. I am absolutely sure that some form of deposit or bond will be taken from whichever preferred bidder emerges from that stage, and the decision will then come back to the founder members of the OPLC board—the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Mayor of London. Those three bodies will take on that scheme, and that arrangement was set up under the previous Government. I hope that answers all the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the process.
Hugh Robertson
The current timetable, all being well—clearly that depends on due diligence and the various things that have to be gone through with the preferred bidder—is for the decision to be announced by the end of the financial year, so by the end of the first quarter of 2011. I would imagine that 1 April 2011 would be a good planning date. Like all decisions, it will be a balance; value for public money, the legacy and promises that we have made will all be considered.
The hon. Member for Bath made a customarily good speech. With regard to tourism, he is right to identify the gap between the ending of RDAs and the start of LEPs as a concern. We are looking at that process with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I absolutely take on board his remarks about county sports partnerships. One of the things that has come out of the slightly tortured process of the past three months is the question of whether we are making enough use of CSPs, which tend to vary in quality, depending on the area in which they are sited, who is in them and who is running them. There is certainly room to bring the two closer together.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on international inspiration, which has not formed part of the debate. I do not know how many Members picked it up, but we were able to confirm the full funding from the Department for International Development for the remainder of the International Inspiration scheme, which is a considerable step forward.
I thank the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) for his contribution. He made the case for Spurs to remain at White Hart Lane. I am probably in danger of overreaching my brief, but I am not sure that that is an option B, as all the information I have seen indicates that Spurs is pursuing that option very seriously indeed. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) made a powerful case in favour of West Ham, and I wish him well for the Boxing day fixture. Time is running out, so I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate for their contributions, particularly the right hon. Member for East Ham, and wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Local Government Funding (Hackney)
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
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
In these final hours of a momentous parliamentary year, I am grateful to be able to put on the record my concern about the consequences of local government funding cuts for my constituency. To make the case fully about what a hammer blow the cuts will be, I have to put those cuts into context.
Parents and young people in Hackney are still reeling from the consequences of the cuts in the education maintenance allowance. The east end of London, particularly Hackney, has one of the highest proportions of young people claiming the EMA of anywhere in the country. In one of the further education colleges in my constituency, BSix, more than 75% of the students claim the EMA. Yesterday, I heard the Secretary of State for Education claim that the EMA was tokenistic. I put it to the Minister that the sums involved—£10, £20 or £30—are not tokenistic in the east end of London. Those sums have made it possible for young people to stay on at school. Losing that money will be a blow to household budgets and will be a slap in the face for those young people and their aspirations.
We will also be hit by the health reorganisation, contrary to the claims of Ministers that the health budget is protected. Hundreds of redundancy notices will be issued by the primary care trust in my constituency, as in others throughout the country, as part of the reorganisation process. Ministers have promised that 45% of management jobs will be lost. Those are real jobs held by real people, some of whom live in my constituency and many of whom are women.
The context of the local government cuts also includes the figures this month on rising unemployment and the big cuts in the public sector generally. The Minister knows that the public sector is a major employer in Hackney, particularly of women.
As if all that was not enough, there will also be changes to housing benefit, which will affect claimants in Hackney, who numbered 7,829 as of November. Based on the current caseload, the average shortfall for a claimant in Hackney due to the caps will by £22.96, but the highest shortfall could be as much as £250 a week. Those calculations do not take into account the further shortfalls that will also arise from the 30th percentile rule, which will mean that people can only get housing benefit from the bottom percentile of private sector rents in their area.
We are not looking at local government cuts in isolation. In Hackney, one of the poorest boroughs in the country, local government cuts should be seen in the context of cuts in the EMA and housing benefit, job losses in the health sector and rising unemployment. On top of these things come the local government funding cuts.
I sought this debate because Government grants to Hackney are being cut by 14.9%, the equivalent of £44 million. That is the biggest cut in London and one of the highest in the UK, putting Hackney 26th out of 152, in percentage terms. If I put nothing else on the record, I wish to put on the record that the Government figure showing an 8.9% reduction was misleading, because it includes moneys that do not come from the Government, including council tax revenue, transitional grant funding, which is only available for the first year, and £3.7 million NHS funding for new activities. The real figure is 14.9%, which is more than £44 million.
In responding to the 8.9% figure, I must say that the Government have made much of the fact that funding per head for residents in Hackney in 2011-12 will be £1,043, compared with only £125 per head in Wokingham. That seems like a huge gap. Some, perhaps even the Minister, will say, “Clearly, Hackney is being treated generously and maybe with undue generosity.” But I am grateful to be able to put the truth about the cuts on the record. Hackney has more than £1,000 per head in local government funding because it has a very low tax base per head—the last major factory moved out of Hackney when I first became a Member of Parliament, more than 20 years ago—whereas Wokingham has a very high tax base.
The London borough of Hackney’s need assessment is one of the highest in England—I have worked in Hackney for 20 years and have personal understanding and knowledge of that—whereas Wokingham has one of the lowest. To illustrate that, in case the Minister is not persuaded, 33% of children, or more than 6,000 pupils, in the London borough of Hackney take free school meals, whereas in Wokingham only 3.9% of pupils—just 491 children—take free school meals. In Hackney, 44% of children are in out-of-work families in receipt of child tax credit, but in Wokingham the figure is only 6.7%. In Hackney, the proportion of older people on the income support element of pension credit is 53.7%, whereas in Wokingham it is only 9.2%.
I beg Ministers to stop making misleading comparisons between Hackney and shire counties, because the need in Hackney is so much greater than in the areas that they are referring to. It is misleading and unfair and it seems as though they do not take seriously the huge social need in the inner city.
The cut of 14.9% is being imposed on top of all the other cutbacks that Hackney is facing. What will be the consequences of such a cut in local government funding to Hackney, together with the changes in the apportionment of what used to be called neighbourhood renewal funds? Inevitably, because the local authority is such a huge employer, there is a threat to jobs and services.
We in Hackney—myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and our elected mayor, Jules Pipe—will be fighting to save jobs and services, but already we know that five youth clubs that we were promised under schemes promoted by the previous Government will not happen. There is concern that the Government are carelessly stopping that youth provision with the stroke of a pen, although Hackney faces so many issues to do with youth culture, gangs, antisocial behaviour and criminality.
We know, partly because of the nature of the schemes that we spend the neighbourhood renewal funds on, that youth offending work and youth work is threatened, as is work with young people not in education, employment or training and on child obesity.
Posts will be deleted. It will suit civil servants and even some council officers to claim that they are not making redundancies—some will be agency posts and others will be voluntary redundancies and I suspect that, at this stage, only a small proportion of posts deleted will be involuntary redundancies—but a post that is deleted is a job that is not there. Just because somebody is an agency worker does not mean that their need for employment is any less. They may not figure in a column headed “Redundancies”, but people who had jobs will lose them.
The hundreds of posts that are deleted, even if they are not officially regarded as redundancies, will mean fewer jobs for young people leaving Hackney schools and colleges who have worked hard and hope to make some sort of life for themselves. In the opening weeks and months, as Hackney local authority draws up its budgets, we will know exactly where the axe will fall. There is no question but that both jobs and services are threatened.
I have heard a number of Ministers in the Tory-led Government talk about local government bureaucracy. The mayor of Hackney, Jules Pipe, is aware of that issue and 36% of posts at tiers 1, 2 and 3 are being deleted—that is 20 positions altogether. In debates such as this, mention is often made of how much chief executive officers in local authorities are paid. Let me put on the record that I do not defend those salary levels, and I do not accept the argument that the salaries earned by some chief executive officers in London are due to the market; it is a cartel driven by recruitment agencies. I have discussed that issue with colleagues in local government who say that they cannot attract the people and that they need to bring people in. I argue, however, that it cannot be satisfactory to have so many leaders of inner-city local authorities who do not live in inner cities; some of them commute from far outside the M25. Local authorities need to invest in second and third-tier officers, so that it becomes more normal to recruit at the highest levels from within. Those authorities would then not have to pay inflated salaries via recruitment agencies, and they would be more likely to attract people who, instead of travelling hundreds of miles to their place of work, are local, have roots in the area and understand the authority.
I do not defend the high, inflated salaries that, in my view, have been paid to some chief executive officers over the recent decade. Such salaries would be more acceptable if those officers accepted what many of us in the House would consider to be proper accountability. Some seem to have difficulty with the notion that together with such a considerable salary—three times that of a Member of Parliament and more than that of the Prime Minister—comes accountability. Sadly, the case of Sharon Shoesmith is an example of that. I am not here to defend high salaries, but even if we got rid of every first, second and third-tier officer in Hackney, it still would not make up for the £44 million of cuts that we face.
In conclusion, we are all aware that savings have to be found in the aftermath of the credit crunch. However, the Labour party does not accept the argument put forward by Ministers and their supporters that the cuts are inevitable in their totality. The cuts are ideological, and the fact that boroughs such as Hackney will be hit so much harder than boroughs such as Richmond points to what is going on. It is wrong and distressing for Ministers to compare Hackney with Wokingham as if they were in any way comparable. It is wrong to mask the scale of the cuts by adding in council tax revenues as if those are given to Hackney from central Government, when in fact the money is raised. It is wrong for Ministers to turn away from the real need that exists in boroughs such as Hackney.
Over the past few decades, remarkable work has been done by community organisations, local authority leaders and the Government in the east end of London. In my local authority, there are five new academies; there is the brand new east London line, which is the brain child of a former Mayor of London. However, the east end still struggles with the legacy of Britain’s industrial past. It is no coincidence that some of the most historically significant local government leaders emerged out of the politics of the east end in the 19th century—George Lansbury, for example, and the councillors of Poplar. It has been clear for over a century that the issues and challenges that face communities in the east end of London cannot be solved by individual charity alone. They cannot be solved by, “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate”, or by charity at the appropriate time. Such problems can be solved by the aspirations and ingenuity of individuals, but only if there is a strong local state. Those of us who live in the east end of London and represent the area, look with apprehension at the clear intention of the Conservative-led Government to whittle away at the local state in the east end, to delete posts and services and leave families and children unprotected against the stormy economic times that we are passing through.
These are almost the final hours of 2010. It has been a momentous Parliament. For the first time in many years we have a coalition Government, and for the first time ever, I am on my party’s Front Bench. The year has ended in a way that many of us could not have foreseen. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased to put my concerns about the cuts on the record, and I assure the Minister and the House that when it comes to fighting to defend the interests of the people of Hackney, I will stand side by side with my colleagues and we will give no quarter. We were elected to fight for people who have no voice and for a better, stronger community. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, the mayor of Hackney, and I believe that the wave of cuts that is coming towards the east end from all quarters poses a real threat to communities and to the changes made by recent generations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for providing hon. Members with the opportunity for this debate. As she said, it has been a momentous year for her and also for me—I, too, did not expect to be where I am. However, that gives me the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the hon. Lady, and those in a wider context that relate to the economy and local government.
When the coalition Government took office, they had clear objectives. Right at the top of those objectives was the desire to shift power from Westminster—and more particularly from Whitehall—to people and communities at grass-roots level, and to promote decentralisation and democratic engagement. We are doing that by giving new powers to councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals.
The backdrop of the economic crisis that we inherited meant that we also needed to identify better ways of funding local government. The spending review and the provisional settlement provide opportunities to do that, and we are working hard to ensure that it happens. Managing the impact of the funding reductions requires tough choices.
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s view that the cuts are ideologically driven. I am sure that if someone comes to her surgery and says, “I am having difficulty paying my rent or my electricity bill but I’m going on holiday to Corfu next week”, her advice would be to cancel the holiday to Corfu and concentrate on delivering the essentials. That is what the Government are doing. Each day, £400 million must be borrowed—perhaps the figure is even larger. We are increasing income and we must reduce expenditure. We are doing that to the best of our ability by protecting the most vulnerable people. I understand the hon. Lady’s points; they are heartfelt and based on her experience as a vigorous and active constituency Member. However, we need to put that in a context where the revenue funding to local government from central Government must be reduced. The comprehensive spending review confirmed that the revenue would reduce by 26% in real terms during the CSR period, excluding expenditure on schools, the fire brigade and police. However, it is very important to understand—and I am sure that the hon. Lady does understand—that local government spending will reduce by far less than 26% because councils also get money from council tax. She is wrong to discount the contribution that council tax will make to the spending power of Hackney.
Andrew Stunell
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, and I will come on to the detail of the sums in a minute or two, if I may. However, the Government, the Department and the Secretary of State have made it clear that we are talking about the spending power available to councils, which is what is crucial to the council’s delivery of services and its employment of staff, as I am sure she understands. It is about how much money the local authority has to spend. She is right: the contribution from central Government is reducing and will reduce further over the period of the CSR. However, the capacity of the council to spend money will not fall below the figures we announced.
Even in these difficult financial times, we have protected those in most need of support. We have provided £1 billion of NHS funding to support social care services, which will build up by 2014-15 and is front-loaded, with £800 million of it coming in the next financial year. That includes £650 million paid through PCTs next year, and Hackney will benefit from a share of that money—as will all social services authorities—by receiving approximately £3,700,000. In a throw-away remark, the hon. Lady said that that would be for new duties; it is for managing the junction between health and social services, which service deliverers on both sides understand can make real economies and add common sense to their joint budgets, as well as improve care. In addition, the Department of Health is rolling £2.4 billion of social care funding into the formula grant over the next three years. That is made up of existing social care grants, which will rise in line with inflation and reach £1.4 billion by 2014, and an additional £1 billion, which will come from the funding to the NHS to councils to support social care.
We have protected investment in the homelessness grant and are prioritising services with the Supporting People programme over the spending review period. We are also giving more flexibility to local authorities. We are ending the ring-fencing of all revenue grants from next year, except school grants, and there will be a new public health grant from 2013. We have simplified and streamlined grant funding, and have shifted a wide range of other budgets, including GP and police and crime commissioner budgets, to the local level where they can be pooled and aligned. An important further step will be the creation of community budgets starting in 16 pilot areas next year, but it is possible to extend that to all local authority areas by 2013.
Turning to Hackney, I welcome what the hon. Lady had to say about high-powered salaries in the local government sector. I think that she and I are of the same mind on that. I hope her words will be widely listened to across London and elsewhere. We have produced a settlement that ensures that no council will see its revenue spending power decrease by more than 8.9% either next year or the year after and is progressive in its impact—I will come to that in a moment. It also confirms the transfer of control of finances from Government to local authorities, giving local authorities discretion. It is in that context, and the context of the council tax freeze and next year’s supporting grant, that I want to assure the hon. Lady that we have responded to the pressures that undoubtedly exist in Hackney for public services and for strong local government.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Is there not a danger in the local government settlement that we are inadvertently penalising local councils that are already running a very tight ship? As the Minister may know, Bromley, which includes my constituency of Orpington, receives the second lowest local government formula grant—just £216. That is being cut by 14.3%, even though the council has very little to cut as it is.
Andrew Stunell
I can if necessary fight a war on two fronts, but that intervention probably makes the point for me. The settlement that we have produced protects Hackney and, it perhaps could be said, at the expense of Bromley. We have subdivided local authorities, in relation to the allocation of grants, by what we have described as banded floors. There are four bands, based on their dependence on Government grant as a fraction of their total spending.
Ms Abbott
If the local government settlement is as benign as the Minister says, why have leading Liberal Democrat councillors and local government leaders and leading Conservative local government leaders attacked it? I believe that one Liberal Democrat local authority leader went so far as to refer to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Local Government as Laurel and Hardy. I would not dream of being so disrespectful, but those are not the words of people who are happy with the settlement.
Andrew Stunell
The hon. Lady and I have been around for longer than probably either of us wants to admit. With every local government settlement, every council finds a reason to complain that it has not been dealt with fairly. I understand that. This is the local government settlement in which every local authority faces a reduction, so it is not unexpected that the pain is felt and sometimes expressed.
However, we are protecting Hackney through the introduction of the banded floors, which means that its proportion of grant reduction is less than the proportion of grant reduction for those in the most independent sector of the local government family. In fact, Hackney is 3% better off than it would have been if we had stuck to the previous Government’s grant formula system.
We have adjusted the distribution of grant to give greater weight to relative needs, raising the figure from 73% to 83%, so that the per capita element is reduced and the element dependent on the deprivation of the area is increased. We have also introduced the transitional fund. That directly benefits Hackney to the tune of about £5,800,000. The introduction of the transitional grant means that we have been able to limit the losses of the councils that would otherwise have been most severely hit. The transitional grant goes to Hackney; it goes to some 70 councils in all over the two-year period, ensuring that any council that in either year would go over the 8.9% threshold will receive transitional grant funding to bring it back to that level. We are currently consulting on that and, in making our final recommendation, we shall look with interest at the feedback that we get from councils.
I want to deal with the hon. Lady’s point about the comparison between Hackney and Wokingham. That is not to say that Wokingham is like Hackney. It is to point out to hon. Members that the Government understand that Hackney is more vulnerable than Wokingham, which is why for every pound of grant going to a person in Wokingham, £8.36 goes to a person in Hackney—a multiple of 8.36. That is the amount of Government grant going to Hackney compared with Wokingham. That is not because we are saying that they are the same, but because the Government freely acknowledge their differences and the need to respond differently and appropriately.
The hon. Lady suggested that there was some kind of conspiracy, perhaps at the expense of her party. The formula grant reduction for Conservative single-tier authorities is 11.9%. For Labour authorities, it is 10.9%. For Liberal Democrats, as she might think is appropriate, it is an 11.3% reduction. Therefore, there is no political conspiracy. Labour authorities have on average £1,092 spending power per head; Conservative ones £862; Liberal Democrat ones £929. Those figures come from the House of Commons Library.
Diplomacy (Internet)
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to hold this debate, which will be the last in Westminster Hall this year. I am indebted to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) for sparing time in the pre-Christmas rush to be here, as well as to the Minister for indulging my interest in the subject in a conversation in the Tea Room a fortnight ago, during which he suggested that I apply for this debate. I hope he is not now regretting that I was successful in the ballot.
The subject is undeniably topical. Anybody doubting the transformational impact of the internet on diplomacy need look only at how the dissemination of hundreds of thousands of sensitive US diplomatic cables through the WikiLeaks website is rocking Governments throughout the world. That was why I entered the ballot, because I wanted to see whether I could draw some preliminary lessons from the WikiLeaks affair. Before I turn to WikiLeaks directly, however, I want to point out that the internet presents opportunities for, as well as threats to, our diplomats. New internet tools have extended the reach of our ideas by circumventing politically motivated censorship and enabling citizens living in oppressive regimes to exercise their rights of free expression, if unfortunately only on a stop-go basis.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, like many other diplomatic services, has developed a substantial “digital diplomacy” initiative in recent years. A more web-savvy FCO has our diplomats blogging and tweeting away as they make Britain’s case in an informal way with audiences around the world. The FCO is also experimenting with intensive online campaigns, notably its Nuclear 2010 campaign in support of UK objectives for the review of the non-proliferation treaty, the campaign to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the campaign to shape global opinion during the London G20 summit. However, there is no easy-to-download app for every diplomatic challenge the UK faces. Adapting to new technologies is never easy for big organisations.
Recent events have shown how easily the same internet technologies can usher in as many diplomatic disasters as breakthroughs. The fateful decision in June 2010 of a former US army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, to give some 260,000 US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, the website dedicated to publishing confidential material, has been a wake-up call to foreign services around the world. I would like to reflect on some of the lessons that we might learn from the recent experience, which I believe marks a watershed in the relationship between diplomacy and the internet.
It is three weeks since The Guardian, along with four other news organisations—The New York Times, El País, Le Monde and Der Spiegel—began publishing extracts from the cables that Julian Assange had directly or indirectly made available in the first instance just to them. As yet, they have neither dumped the entire dataset into the public domain, nor published names that would endanger innocent individuals. I believe they have so far acted in a responsible manner. I have spoken to other newspaper editors who said they would have behaved in exactly the same way. I fundamentally disagree with Senator Joseph Lieberman, who accused The New York Times of
“at the very least an act of bad citizenship”.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the language of both Senator Lieberman and my friend Vice-President Joe Biden, who described Assange as a terrorist. None the less, the names were given of three senior Thai officials animadverting on the sexual and other behaviours of the Crown Prince. If a courtier in Buckingham Palace did that, presumably not an awful lot would happen to him, but I am not so sure about Thailand, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right to say that all the revelations are harmless. In the Kremlin, Putin’s people have said that they now know the names of some of these people and they will be taking action. I would be quaking in my boots thanks to The Guardian and Assange because of some of the names put on the web.
Joseph Johnson
It is regrettable if people have been put in a position that makes them vulnerable to reprisals. I was not aware of the instance to which the right hon. Gentleman refers or of the fact that Putin had said that he was in a position to take action. I suspect that part of that may be bluff. Perhaps he wishes that he knew who was responsible.
Foreign policy in this country and in many democracies that are otherwise healthy is fundamentally and woefully underscrutinised. In Britain, for example, a Prime Minister can sign international treaties and take a country to war without a vote in Parliament. Foreign Office questions in Parliament come round only once every five sitting weeks. The culture of bipartisanship and the parochial nature of domestic politics stifle scrutiny of foreign policy making, but WikiLeaks is starting to change some of that. We can see that millions of people around the world, many of them in countries that have been denied a free media, have glimpsed truths about their rulers and Governments that had previously been hidden from them or that they had merely suspected. The Guardian is right to claim that the cables have revealed
“wrongdoing, war crimes, corruption, hypocrisy, greed, espionage, double-dealing and the cynical exercise of power on a wondrous scale.”
The fact that there has been public interest in an airing of these documents—or a large majority of them—is beyond question. We have learned from the revelations, among thousands of other things, that Saudi Arabia and other Arab Governments sided with Israel in urging the US to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb; that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership, demanding e-mail addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers, credit card details and frequent flyer numbers; that there could be a shift in relations between China and North Korea, with suggestions that Beijing might not intervene if the reclusive regime in Pyongyang collapsed; that there are concerns over Pakistan’s growing instability, the security of its nuclear weapons and suspicions that the Inter-Services Intelligence is backing the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan; that there are suspicions of corruption in the Afghan Government, with one cable alleging that Vice-President Zia Massoud was carrying $52 million in cash when he was stopped during a visit to the UAE; that Russia and its intelligence agencies are using mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations, with one cable describing the country as a “virtual mafia state”; that there is a close relationship between Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, which is causing intense US suspicion; and that US commanders, the Afghan President and local officials in Helmand have privately been critical of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan.
Those are just a few of the highlights that have been picked up and re-published by thousands of newspapers and all other forms of media organisations all over the world. There will be more to come, but what is clear is that there is massive global interest in this extraordinary deluge of information. That is not because Assange and the “information-must-be-free” brigade at WikiLeaks have given these documents a global circulation, but because thousands of editors at hundreds of media organisations in dozens of countries throughout the world have all judged that there is a compelling public interest justifying publication.
It is possible to start drawing some lessons from the WikiLeaks saga. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon papers case more than three decades ago, it is, first and foremost, for Governments to protect their own secrets. It is not the job of the media to do so, unless there is a compelling national security reason to hold back from publication. The WikiLeaks affair has reignited the debate about where the line should be drawn between the right to a free press and freedom of speech, and the interests of national security. It has intensified what is an eternal and essentially unresolvable conflict. On the one hand, we defend and demand freedom of expression and the ideal of a free press but, on the other hand, we accept the limits to those freedoms in the interests of national security.
Those at the freedom-of-expression end of the debate have hailed Assange as a hero for revealing double-dealing and hypocrisy around the world. He is called the new Jason Bourne by Jemima Khan, the Ned Kelly of the cyber age by members of the press in Australia, and a libertine 007 by those who note his fondness for martinis. They point out that people living in countries with repressive Governments who lack a free media have a great hunger to read what their rulers have been saying and that we deny them that right at our peril.
To such people, it must appear hypocritical for the US to argue that the internet can be a force for transparent and democratic Government, and for accountability and democracy around the world, and then to condemn as “nihilists” those who use internet technology to allow greater scrutiny of US foreign policy making. I have considerable sympathy for that line of argument—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I have not been persuaded by those on the national security side of the argument who have accused the WikiLeaks founder of being an information or info-tech “terrorist”, to use the word cited by Vice-President Biden, which was mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Rotherham, and of putting the lives of civilians and troops in danger. Thus far, as I said earlier, I think that the redaction of names and other sensitive information by The Guardian and the four other media organisations entrusted with the cables has been extremely diligent and painstaking. Of course, any broader distribution of the cables beyond this core group of responsible media organisations might considerably increase the risks to individuals named, especially if standards of care drop. For the moment, however, I am yet to be convinced that the release of the cables will increase the vulnerability of the US to attack, as has been rather melodramatically suggested.
I also take with a pinch of salt the way in which US diplomats have been touring TV studios invoking the sanctity of diplomatic communications, as per the Vienna convention on consular relations. That international treaty was signed in 1963 by 172 countries. Among other things, it guarantees the inviolability of the diplomatic bag and other communications from embassies back to their home countries. I am sceptical, first, because it is states that are signatories to that convention, rather than media organisations, and, secondly, because of the revelation in the leaked cables that the US seems to use staff in some of its embassies as part of a global espionage network tasked with obtaining not only information from the people whom those staff meet, but a wealth of personal details, including even DNA material.
A second lesson is that it would be dismaying if there were now to be an attempt in the US to prosecute Julian Assange for his role in publishing the documents. I say that because I think that such an attempt would conflate the role of the media with that of espionage, which in turn would have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, the purpose of which is to unearth “what they don’t want you to know”. It would be one thing if Julian Assange had encouraged, helped or conspired with Bradley Manning to leak the material, but Assange claims—and there is no reason at this point to disbelieve him—never to have even heard the informant’s name until he read it in an article in Wired magazine that mentioned Manning’s arrest. I am no lawyer, but unless it can be established that there is a bona fide ground for Assange to be charged under the US Espionage Act, he surely deserves to be regarded as a publisher and a journalist, which in a US court of law would entitle him to protection under the first amendment to the US constitution. From the limited information that is publicly available, I see little substantive difference between Assange’s role and that of The Guardian, The New York Times and others in running the story contained in the cables that he passed on to them. Neither he nor they were the original leakers.
Thirdly, the WikiLeaks affair shows us that technology is making it much more difficult to keep information confidential. It has exposed the extent to which internet technology makes possible security breaches on a scale that was unimaginable in an era of paper-based communication. As Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador to the US in the Blair years, has pointed out, paper would have been impossible to steal in such quantities. The cables themselves came from a huge secret internet protocol router network—a database that was kept separate from the ordinary civilian internet and run by the Department of Defence in Washington. Since the attacks of September 2001, there has been a move in the US to link up archives of Government information in the hope that key intelligence no longer gets trapped in information silos or “stovepipes”. This database can be accessed not only by anyone in the State Department, but by anyone in the US military who has security clearance up to the secret level, a password and a computer connected to the database, which astonishingly covers more than 3 million people, including Private Bradley Manning.
The US Government have now announced a thorough review of the principles on which they share the information that they collect—I am sure that the Saudi King, for example, will be relieved to hear that. Safeguarding sources is critical to any information-gathering exercise and after such a breach, rebuilding the trust of many thousands of sources will be a painstaking exercise. The US’s experience is therefore a salutary lesson for all other diplomatic services around the world. I will be interested to know whether the Foreign Office proposes a similar review.
We are at a watershed in relations between the Government and the new internet media. The UK Government have a clear choice as to whether to promote a transparency agenda or to seek the false comfort of the old culture of secrecy and repression. I would prefer Britain to choose to become a more open and less secretive society, rather than to leave it to the likes of Julian Assange to force openness upon us. Rather than tightening further our draconian Official Secrets Act and threatening to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers, Governments should focus on making more information available and protecting only that which can cause substantive harm.
It is worth noting that none of the released documents was classified as top secret and much of the information in the 6% of documents classified as secret was already publicly known. Furthermore, these documents were likely to be released anyway in the course of freedom of information requests.
Of course, media organisations must exercise caution when revealing possibly sensitive information that could endanger lives, and this country should respect defence advisory notices when they are reasonably issued. However, new technologies have the potential to transform diplomacy and foreign policy making for the better in the long run. Studies of the effects of right-to-information legislation in numerous countries have found that there has been little impact on the amount of information recorded and that opinions have not been blunted following an increase in transparency. There is no chilling effect. In fact, according to Article 19, an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression, the quality of some documents has improved, because the people writing them know that they will become public one day. They therefore focus on the provision of real political analysis rather than tittle-tattle and colour.
Officials have a duty to pass on important information, and that is not lifted because of fears that it one day may become public. By forcing greater transparency in foreign policy making, I believe that WikiLeaks will ultimately have a beneficial effect on the conduct of diplomacy. Let us continue to embrace the new technologies, not smother them at birth.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have consulted the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) on this debate, both in the House and by e-mail. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, a distinguished former correspondent of the Financial Times, on raising this issue. One of the most thoughtful Foreign Office Ministers is here with us. His colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), mentioned in the main Chamber the concept of a private realm of information, which was new “dip speak” to me. I do not know whether the Minister will expand a bit on that.
I agree in part with the argument made by the hon. Member for Orpington: the victimisation and the turning of Mr Assange into some kind of hero are wrong. He is quite a squalid customer who is lapping up all the publicity that he is getting at the moment. The quicker we can forget about him, the better.
I do not agree that private communications should be made readily available, for the simple reason that the British diplomatic service is understaffed and one of the smallest, although of the highest quality, in the world. It works on complete frankness in paper communication. If that becomes impossible because people think that their real-time thoughts—which may be relevant on the day but perhaps not so accurate with the hindsight of longer reflection—cannot be transmitted because they can end up on the front page of a paper, the decision-making process here in our nation’s capital will suffer.
Most of the material that I saw as a Minister could have been put straight on to the web. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but equally, he comes from a paper that takes foreign affairs seriously. It is extraordinary that we now learn that the International Committee of the Red Cross provided concrete evidence—
Miss Anne McIntosh (in the Chair)
Order. May I invite the Minister to make the winding-up speech?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
Miss McIntosh, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship— [Interruption.]
Miss Anne McIntosh (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who speaks from a sedentary position, that he did not request permission to speak from the hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate, the Minister or the Chair.
Alistair Burt
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) for his considered words on this issue, for raising topical and challenging questions, and for his immense courtesy in letting me have sight of his remarks before the debate so that I did not have to take them unwittingly from his computer.
There is no doubt that our information world has changed. The internet can be accessed from most homes in the UK and can be used as a force for mass communication and mobilisation. Much more information is published by the media, and government is more transparent than it has ever been. The internet has changed how we all communicate, the audiences that we can reach and the manner in which we speak to them. All that has happened at the same time as, although it is unconnected with, a loss of trust in those in authority and those who govern, and a deepening scepticism about what is kept private or secret by Governments, or indeed anyone.
I do not intend to comment on specific information released into the public realm in recent weeks, or on any legal issues affecting Julian Assange. What I want to discuss, and what I believe is essentially at issue in this debate, is the question of how much privacy there should be in the public realm—if I may gently correct the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), for whose presence at such an important debate I am grateful.
I think that my hon. Friend and I agree that there is a need and a place for some privacy in the public realm and other areas of life. Otherwise, it would be impossible for lawyers, doctors, journalists, scientists and other professionals to keep confidentiality in their work and before they reach conclusions that are ready to be made public. Premature exposure could threaten the integrity of such conclusions or prevent them from being reached at all. “Work in progress” is not a term to discard lightly.
An important distinction must be drawn between journalism and history. It is essential for information to be published and made accessible in due course to complete the historical record, uphold accountability and contribute to our understanding of the past. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office considers many documents ready for release after 30 years of storage, and most are, but journalism is not yet history, although perhaps it is history in progress. Live journalism shapes and influences events as they develop. When journalism breaches the confidentiality of diplomacy, it can threaten the ends that that diplomacy seeks to achieve. In diplomacy, the ability to negotiate in private confers freedom to broker agreement, and it is essential that that space remain. The basis of effective diplomacy continues to be trust between individuals and between states. There is thus space and reason for privacy.
The importance of free, frank and strictly confidential communication between Governments, and between Ministers and their diplomats, has been proved many times in history, from the formation of NATO to the western response to the Soviet Union, recent events such as climate change, peace and security debates at the UN, and the future of NATO. Diplomatic confidentiality has been severely strained by the release of sensitive diplomatic cables through WikiLeaks. The Government unequivocally condemn the unauthorised release of classified information. The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere. They are reckless, because they compromise the vital ability of Governments and diplomats to operate on the basis of confidentiality of information.
WikiLeaks confuses transparency and accountability with irresponsible attempts to undermine Government. The leaks undermine the trust and relationships that allow us to gather sensitive information as we pursue objectives in the UK’s national interest on such issues as one might expect—Iran, the middle east peace process, counter-terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation—and as individuals put their jobs, livelihoods and lives at stake to give us honest accounts of what is happening on human rights, politics and governance. Simply removing names from documents does not put that right. Sometimes, in a context unknown to an unsighted editor, the source of a comment is instantly recognisable, even with no name, to the parties involved. Security is thus unwittingly but recklessly compromised.
As my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech, it is those who bravely and candidly tell us what is happening under repressive regimes—those who offer insights that enrich our understanding and improve our policy, and without which we would be poorer—who are betrayed by WikiLeaks. I do not think that he is arguing with me about the need to keep some things private; the issue is what is kept private. To respond to his question, we are alert to the threat of unauthorised access, and we are doing all we can.
When WikiLeaks gives newspaper editors the power to choose which cables to release, what stories to write and how to spin them, it transfers a crucial power away from a democratically elected Government into the hands of an opaque elite. Governments are elected with a mandate to keep everyone’s interests at heart; editors are employed with a mandate to sell news. The internet may be democratic at the point of download, but it does not have to be democratic at the point of upload.
We must also consider the unintended consequences for the conduct of diplomacy of the leaking of sensitive and secret diplomatic cables. The inability to hold conversations in private, in the confidence that they will remain private, will mean diplomats are more guarded about what they say to each other. That point has been made. They will inevitably commit fewer of these exchanges to paper, and our historical record will be severely damaged as a result. Transparency is therefore not well served.
It is also important to emphasise that WikiLeaks must be judged quite separately from the internet. My hon. Friend is right: the internet has in many ways empowered the individual and provided otherwise impossible insights into closed societies. There is no doubt that in many ways diplomacy has benefited from the internet age. Our ambassadors tweet, our Ministers blog and our main web pages are viewed, on average, more than 4.2 million times a month. Thousands of British citizens rely on our website for up-to-the-minute travel advice and foreign policy news. During the ash crisis in April this year, the FCO’s social media profiles on Facebook and Twitter enabled us to listen to stories as they developed and to dismiss inaccuracies. Digital tools offer us the means to take diplomacy further into the public arena and reach audiences—in the blogosphere, in social media—with whom we could otherwise make no connection.
The job of diplomacy is to influence, explain and facilitate the delivery of our foreign policy goals. Increasingly that is not done state to state. Multiple global organisations that are not part of a Government impact constantly on our lives, whether they are multinational corporations or terrorist groups. Such digital conversations—often taking place in the local languages, from Vietnamese to Tagalog—open up new opportunities for diplomacy and enable us to talk about our work in new ways and in new places. Look, for example, at the Foreign Office blogs on human rights day, when members of staff around the world described their human rights work. Look, too, at the work of Ambassador John Duncan in bringing the mysterious world of the negotiations on the non-proliferation of nuclear arms into the light. That digital commentary explained, enlightened and ultimately strengthened wider support for our position in the negotiations.
The best of the web is where one engages and listens, not just where one broadcasts. Through blogging and social media, we can listen to how people view our work and monitor how the world views us, giving us the ability to adjust our behaviour accordingly. The internet age will continue to open up new possibilities and we will change the way we work as the world changes around us.
Our Government are open. We are committed to the principle and practice of freedom of information, and we handle the release of information routinely. In contrast to leaked documents, those releases are governed by a transparent system—a system of balanced judgment and careful consideration, which takes into account the interests of all, by the elected and not by the self-chosen. The positive and negative consequences of releasing information into the public realm are weighed against each other, and if it is in the public interest to release information, that information is released. If we as politicians and civil servants are accountable for those judgments about the public interest and the release of information, that helps to ensure that, for the public, the system is open, fair and democratic.
It has become fashionable but lazy to assume that anything done behind the curtain of democratic government is done against, not for, the common interest, and that there is only self-interest, not public interest. The work of thousands of people on behalf of this country demonstrates that that is simply not true, and it is time for elected Members and democratic Governments to say so.
Miss Anne McIntosh (in the Chair)
I thank all those who have been involved in the proceedings in Westminster Hall throughout the year and wish you all a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
Consumer Credit Regulation
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Today the Government have published a consultation document on transferring consumer credit regulation from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to the new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority (CPMA). The Government announced the creation of the CPMA as part of their wider reform of the financial regulatory architecture in July, and committed to consult on the merits of transferring responsibility for consumer credit regulation to this new body.
The consultation document sets out the Government’s proposed approach of bringing the regulation of consumer credit into line with that of financial services generally. This proposal is part of the Government’s wider programme to reform financial regulation, to improve consumer protection and strengthen financial stability.
Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and are available on the websites of HM Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Infrastructure Cost Review
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Government have today published the report of an investigation into how to reduce the costs of delivery of civil engineering works for major infrastructure projects.
The report identifies a number of drivers for the higher cost of construction in the UK compared to other EU countries and supports the view that higher costs for UK infrastructure are mainly generated in the early project formulation and pre-construction phases. Efficiency improvements could lower the costs of delivery and realise potential benefits of £2 billion to 3 billion per annum. A number of specific areas where the Government are considering taking action to deliver these benefits have been identified. A prioritised work programme for implementation will be finalised and announced around the time of Budget 2011.
Copies of the document have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Treasury website at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.
Civil Service Compensation Scheme
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I am laying before Parliament today the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (Amendment No.2) Scheme 2010 and the associated revisions to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
The new scheme will replace the old scheme which the previous Government tried to reform in February 2010. I first announced that the coalition Government intended to reform the civil service compensation scheme on 6 July 2010, following which the Superannuation Bill was introduced to Parliament on 15 July to ensure that reform of the scheme could not be vetoed by any one of the unions. Extensive discussions then took place between officials and Ministers and the civil service trade unions. Proposals were put to the Council of Civil Service Unions on 24 September. In the event, the council did not accept those proposals, but five of the unions—Prospect, the FDA, the Prison Officers’ Association (POA), the GMB and Unite—approached the Government directly and asked to continue discussions on those terms. There followed an intensive period of meetings between the five unions and officials, which on 5 October resulted in an agreement being reached between the negotiators on terms that might form the basis of a new compensation scheme. The five unions wrote to confirm that these terms had accurately recorded an agreement, that all their negotiating teams were able to recommend positively to their executives, as being the best that might be achieved in negotiation.
Subsequently, the POA’s executive committee voted to distance itself from that agreement and to request further discussion. The sixth union, the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union, had decided not to take part in the talks at the point when the five other unions had agreed to negotiate separately with the Government.
The Superannuation Act 2010, which received Royal Assent on 16 December, amended the Superannuation Act 1972 so as to remove the requirement for agreement of the civil service unions to any changes that could reduce the benefits of the compensation scheme. However, during the passage through Parliament of the Superannuation Bill, the Government agreed a number of changes to it, including a further amendment to the Superannuation Act 1972 so as to introduce a clear requirement that future consultation on any changes that would reduce the value of the civil service compensation scheme must be undertaken
“with a view to reaching agreement”
and that a report is made to Parliament setting out the details of the consultation that has been carried out with the unions.
During the Superannuation Bill’s passage through Parliament, the Government remained committed to trying to reach an agreement with the Council of Civil Service Unions and offered every opportunity to those unions that wished to engage constructively in negotiations. Five of them did so, and their proposals formed the basis of the discussions and subsequent agreement on which the new proposed scheme is based.
On 9 November, the Council of Civil Service Unions wrote with suggestions for areas that could be considered in further talks, and I responded on 15 November. The suggestions made in the council’s letter would have had the effect of reducing the level of compensation paid to many lower-paid civil servants, and I therefore did not wish those suggestions to form the basis of further discussions. Having a new scheme that provides genuinely better protection for the lowest-paid civil service workers, many of whom are members of the PCS, has been an important aim of the Government throughout the discussions on reform.
I explained to the Council of Civil Service Unions that, in the absence of detailed proposals from the PCS, work would have to proceed on drafting the rules for a new scheme. On 6 December 2010 officials sent the draft rules for the new compensation scheme to the Council of Civil Service Unions to seek its views. Those rules form the basis of the new compensation scheme, which is being laid before Parliament today.
The Superannuation Act 2010 provides a fall-back position by introducing statutory caps on compensation which would be applied if, for any reason, the Government cannot implement the new proposals. The Government are now in a position to be able to repeal the caps set out in the Act through the Superannuation Act 2010 (Repeal of Limits on Compensation) Order 2010, which comes into force today. The repeal means that the statutory caps of a maximum of 15 months’ pay for voluntary departures and 12 months’ pay for compulsory departures, will not apply to the new civil service compensation scheme that is starting on 22 December 2010. The key points of the new civil service compensation scheme are as follows:
Voluntary Redundancy
Below normal pension age (either aged 60 or 65)—one month’s pay per year of service up to 21 months, with a taper of between a maximum of 21 months’ and six months’ compensation for those approaching pension age;
At or above normal pension age—one month’s pay per year of service up to a maximum of six months;
Staff who have reached minimum pension age (either aged 50 or 55) can choose to opt for early retirement on their current pension entitlement. Staff will be asked to surrender some (or all) of their severance payment to meet the cost of receiving this pension early.
Period of notice
All staff will be entitled to at least three months’ notice.
Compulsory Redundancy
One month’s pay per year of service up to 12 months. All staff who may face compulsory redundancy will first have had the opportunity to exit under voluntary terms.
Low and high pay thresholds
All staff earning less than £23,000, on a full time equivalent basis, will be treated as if they earn £23,000 for the purpose of calculating their redundancy payments.
There will also be an upper pay threshold of £149,820. Staff earning more will have their salary capped at this figure for the purpose of calculating their redundancy payments.
Apprenticeships
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am today setting out our proposed apprenticeships provisions in the forthcoming education Bill.
Apprenticeship offer to Young People—The Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learners Act 2009 (sections 91-99) introduced an “apprenticeship offer” for all suitably qualified young people who wanted one. Those young people are:
young people aged 16-18;
young people aged 19-24 who have a disability or learning difficulty; and
young people aged 19-24 who have been in local authority care.
This was to be achieved by placing a duty to secure sufficient number and variety of apprenticeship places for those eligible young people on the chief executive of skills funding. The sections of the Act covering the “offer” have not been commenced.
The education Bill will redefine the “offer”. It will place a higher duty on the chief executive of skills funding to prioritise funding for apprenticeship training for the same people who were covered by the apprenticeship offer and who have secured an apprenticeship.
This new duty will constitute a much more robust deal for these young people because it will ensure that the chief executive of skills funding gives priority for funding apprenticeship training to those eligible for the “redefined offer”. We will continue to work with those key stakeholders representing vulnerable and disadvantaged young people to ensure that they have equal access to “redefined offer”. This new duty will be more straightforward, more meaningful and less bureaucratic than the apprenticeship offer set out in sections 91-99 of the Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learners Act 2009 “apprenticeship offer”.
Amendments to functions of the Chief Executive of Skills Funding—The Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learners Act 2009 (section 6) names the chief executive of skills funding as the certifying authority for apprenticeships. We propose to amend this section in order to give the Secretary of State powers to designate the person or persons to be the certifying authority for apprenticeships in a manner which broadly mirrors similar provisions in Wales.
The rationale for this amendment is that this Government want to see the responsibility for issuing apprenticeships certificates remain with sector skills councils and other sector bodies rather than the national apprenticeships service, to whom the chief executive of skills funding would delegate this role. The national apprenticeships service will continue to have end to end responsibility for apprenticeships. However, under the new statutory apprenticeship arrangements, the intention is for sector skills councils and sector bodies to issue apprenticeship frameworks and are best placed therefore to ensure that the English framework requirements for the issue of a certificate in respect of the statutory completion conditions are met. In addition, there are currently no contingencies in the England provisions. The amended section will allow the same contingencies in England as in Wales that the Secretary of State may act as the certifying authority where there are no other appropriate persons to do so.
General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council were held on 13-14 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK.
The agenda items covered were as follows:
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)
The FAC was chaired by Baroness Ashton. A provisional report of the meeting and adopted conclusions can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/118456.pdf
Sudan
Conclusions were adopted (see link).
Dame Rosalind Marsden, EU Special Representative in Sudan, briefed Ministers on preparations for the 9 January referendum. The Development Commissioner (Piebalgs) highlighted engagement with southern Sudan and the need to tackle Sudan’s debt burden.
The Foreign Secretary stressed the need to focus on the EU’s contingency planning, building capacity in the south, and engaging with the north.
Somalia
During a broad discussion on Somalia, many Ministers stressed the need for a more comprehensive EU strategy covering development, support for the Transitional Federal Government, counter-piracy and security work, and engaging the regional states. The Foreign Secretary encouraged the European Commission to enhance its engagement with Puntland.
Côte d’Ivoire
Conclusions were adopted (see link).
Ministers exchanged views on the recent presidential election. The conclusions include an intention to adopt restrictive measures against those who are obstructing peace and national reconciliation and jeopardising the proper outcome of the electoral process.
Afghanistan
Baroness Ashton summarised recent developments in Afghanistan and the NATO summit, which she had attended. The Foreign Secretary and others emphasised the need for the EU to focus on supporting governance, training capacity and delivering on the EU action plan agreed in October 2009 (see link below).
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/110789.pdf.
Middle East Peace Process
Conclusions were adopted (see link).
The Foreign Secretary welcomed the adoption of the conclusions, particularly the readiness of the EU to assist in the reconstruction and economic recovery of Gaza.
Baroness Ashton acknowledged frustrations over the lack of progress with the peace process, but noted the EU’s collective commitment to continue supporting US-led efforts.
Western Balkans
Ministers briefly discussed the Kosovo elections of 12 December. Baroness Ashton and the Enlargement Commissioner (Füle) made a statement on this:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/118432.pdf.
There was broad consensus on the need for the EU-facilitated dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina to start as quickly as possible. There was a brief discussion of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and agreement that there should be a fuller discussion early next year.
Iran
Baroness Ashton briefed Ministers over dinner on the talks she attended with the E3+3 countries (France, Germany, UK, China, Russia and the US) and the Iranian nuclear negotiator in Geneva on 6-7 December. Details were set out in my earlier written ministerial statement looking ahead to this FAC/GAC.
Strategic Partners
Baroness Ashton set out her thoughts on the EU’s relation with strategic partners, particularly China, Russia and the US, ahead of her presentation to the European Council on 16 December. There was a broad agreement for the UK’s suggestion to operationalise Baroness Ashton’s ideas with objectives and deliverables for each strategic partner. This was also discussed at the GAC (see December European Council below).
Priorities for 2011
Baroness Ashton presented her priorities for the external action service. These include the Western Balkans, the Middle East Peace Process, Iran, Syria, Maghreb, Sahel, Turkey and the Eastern Neighbourhood.
Moldova
Ministers had a brief exchange on Moldova’s elections of 28 November and the continuing negotiations on forming a Government.
OSCE Summit
Ministers assessed the outcome of the OSCE summit in Astana of 1-2 December. Baroness Ashton underlined that the summit declaration provided a mandate to take forward work on the action plan which the EU would support. See link:
http://www.osce.org/documents/mcs/2010/12/48067_en.pdf.
Lithuania set out its 2011 OSCE chairmanship-in-office programme. Priorities will include: developing a dialogue with Central Asia; greater co-operation between the OSCE, EU and NATO; media freedoms; and energy and cyber security.
General Affairs Council (GAC)
The GAC was chaired by the Belgium Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Steven Vanackere (EU Presidency). The President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy, joined Ministers over lunch.
A provisional report of the meeting and adopted conclusions can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/118495.pdf.
European Citizens’ Initiative
The Council endorsed an agreement on the initiative, which aims to make it possible for EU citizens to call for a legislative proposal to be made on specific issues. I said that we agreed in principle with the initiative, but regretted that more was not done to minimise the burdens on member states. For this reason, and for reasons of parliamentary scrutiny, I noted that the UK would abstain from the vote.
December European Council
The main part of this discussion took place over lunch with Herman Van Rompuy.
Ministers examined draft conclusions for the Council to be held on 16-17 December. The December Council will look at the outline of a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the stability of the euro area and a limited amendment to the EU treaties required to create such a mechanism. Additionally, Ministers reviewed the EU’s relationship with strategic partners ahead of Baroness Ashton’s presentation to the December European Council.
I set out UK concerns about treaty change. There should be no transfer of competence to the EU. I emphasised that article 122(2) of the treaty of the functioning of the EU (TFEU) should not be used to provide assistance for economic or financial crises; that absolute clarity was necessary that the UK would not be bound by the new provisions; and that no liability should accrue to the EU budget or to non-participating states. On strategic partners, there was considerable support for my proposal for an annual review of the EU’s relations with partners at European Council level.
EU Enlargement
After much discussion. Ministers agreed enlargement conclusions (see link) on the basis of the Commission’s enlargement package published 9 November. I successfully argued for the inclusion of language on the need to protect the credibility of the enlargement process to ensure members states’ continuing support and our ability to advance reforms in candidate countries. The UK’s key concerns were protected in the individual country conclusions. One issue was referred to the European Council: the Commission’s recommendation to grant candidate status to Montenegro.
February European Council
There was a brief review of the agenda for the February European Council, which includes energy policy and innovation.
Europe 2020
The presidency made a short presentation on the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth. The next step will be a publication of the annual growth survey on 12 January. Europe 2020 will also be reviewed at the December European Council.
Cohesion Policy
There was short presentation by the Commissioner for Regional Policy (Johannes Hahn) on the Commission’s report on structural cohesion funds (see link).
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/repor_en.htm.
UK/Russia Embassies
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
On 10 December we requested that the Russian embassy in London withdraw a member of their staff from the UK. This was in response to clear evidence of activities by the Russian intelligence services against UK interests.
Russia responded on 16 December by requesting the removal of a member of our embassy staff in Moscow. We reject any basis for this action.
Both staff members have now been withdrawn.
We remain open to a more productive relationship with Russia, as with any other country, on the basis of respect for our laws.
Funding and Commissioning Routes for Public Health
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing a consultation document, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Consultation on the funding and commissioning routes for public health”, seeking views on proposals that were initially outlined in the White Paper “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our Strategy for public health in England” (Cm7985).
We are consulting on proposals for the commissioning and funding arrangements for delivery of public health services in the future. The consultation also asks questions about how the Department should implement some of our proposals.
The White Paper described a new era for public health, with a higher priority and dedicated resources. There will be ring-fenced public health funding from within the overall NHS budget. Local authorities will have a new role in improving the health and well-being of their population as part of a new system with localism at its heart and devolved responsibilities, freedoms and funding.
Directors of Public Health will be the strategic leaders for public health and reducing health inequalities in local communities, working in partnership with the local NHS and across the public, private and voluntary sectors. There will also be a new, dedicated, professional public health service—Public Health England—that will be part of the Department of Health.
This consultation is an opportunity to collect the views of public health professionals, NHS commissioners, local authorities, service providers—particularly the voluntary and independent sector—and all other interested parties.
The consultation will close at the end of March 2011.
The document has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Contaminated Blood
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
On 14 October 2010 I issued a written ministerial statement, Official Report, columns 30-31WS, announcing a review of aspects of support available to individuals infected with hepatitis C and/or HIV by NHS-supplied blood transfusions or blood products, In that statement, I said I expected to be able to report the outcome of this work and my intentions by the end of 2010. The review has been completed and submitted to Ministers, and I will update the House early in January when I publish the report.
Changes to the Immigration Rules
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I am today laying before the House a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules pertaining to tier 1 and tier 2 of the points-based system. Copies of which will be available from the Vote Office.
On 28 June the Home Secretary announced in the House of Commons that the Government would introduce an interim limit on economic migration in anticipation of the introduction of a permanent limit in April 2011. This limit applied to out-of-country main applicants to tier 1 (general) between 19 July 2010 and April 2011, and numbers entering through this route would be equal to those entering in the equivalent period for 2009-10. The limit also applied to the number of migrants who can be offered jobs by sponsor employers through tier 2 (general). This route was to be reduced in the interim period by 1,300 migrants, the equivalent of a 5% reduction across the relevant routes of tiers 1 and 2.
The first of the changes in the statement of changes to the Immigration Rules will close the tier 1 (general) category of the Immigration Rules to persons applying from outside the United Kingdom. I am taking this step as a result of the volume of applications that have been received since 19 July 2010, the date I set the interim limit on tier 1 general.
The second of these changes, specifying the level of the tier 2 (general) interim limit in the Immigration Rules, is being made to take account of the divisional court judgment of 17 December 2010 in the cases brought by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the English Community Care Association. The divisional court determined that in order for the Government’s interim limit policy to have legal effect the level of the limit should be specified in the Immigration Rules, as opposed to UK Border Agency guidance.
The statement of changes remedies the matter. The interim limit on tier 2 (general) will apply from 21 December 2010 until 5 April 2011. The level of the limit is 10,832 and will apply to the number of certificates of sponsorship available to licensed tier 2 (general) sponsors. The changes will take effect immediately to ensure that employers and other users of the UK’s immigration system have certainty about its operation. I would welcome the opportunity to debate these immigration rules changes should Members choose to pray against the statement of changes.
The Home Secretary has been granted a certificate to appeal; either directly to the Supreme Court if it grants permission or, if not, to the Court of Appeal.
Tier 1 (general) will be closed to out-of-country applications because of the number of applications that have been received since 19 July 2010. The route is not being closed in response to the divisional court’s decision.
The statement of changes to the Immigration Rules laid before Parliament on 28 June 2010 was constructed to provide for the application of interim limits on the number of applications for entry clearance granted under the tier 1 (general) category. Under the Immigration Rules as amended by the changes made on 19 July, applications over and above this upper interim limit would be rolled over for consideration in a subsequent grant period. However, as the Home Secretary announced to Parliament on 23 November, the Government have decided tier 1 (general) route will not continue in its current form and will be refocused as a route aimed at entrepreneurs, investors and the exceptionally talented. This means that there will be no additional allocation of places under the tier 1 (general) category under which rolled-over applications could be considered once the current interim limit is reached.
We should not continue to accept applications under the existing route if they cannot be granted once the current interim limit is reached. We expect, taking into account current trends in applications and refusal rates, the interim limit to be reached imminently. The statement of changes to the Immigration Rules therefore removes existing provision for the granting of entry clearance in the tier 1 (general) category.
I regret that, given the difficulty in anticipating the date on which the interim limit would be reached, it has not been possible to observe the usual convention of laying such a statement of changes before Parliament 21 days in advance of its entry into force. I also wish to clarify that the numerical limit applied to tier 1 applications under the interim limit is 5,100 and not 5,400 as the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has previously been informed. The latter figure was the limit that would have applied if interim limits had commenced on 1 July 2010, whereas in fact they commenced on 19 July 2010.
This change is effective from 23 December and applications for entry clearance as a tier 1 (general) migrant made on or after that date will not be accepted. Applications for entry clearance as a tier 1 (general) migrant made before that date will still be considered against the existing Immigration Rules. These changes do not apply to those who have existing leave in the tier 1 (general) category and require an extension of stay, nor do they apply to those presently in the United Kingdom in another category of stay and are applying for a variation of leave as a tier 1 (general) migrant.
As noted above, tier 1 of the points-based system will be redesigned to make enhanced provision for entrepreneurs and investors and to incorporate new provisions for the exceptionally talented. This will ensure that tier 1 continues to offer a route for those who are able to make the greatest economic contribution to the United Kingdom. These changes will be introduced in April next year and I will announce the detail of these new arrangements to Parliament in due course.
Winter Resilience Review
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
As I explained to the House yesterday, in light of the early and severe onset of winter last month I asked David Quarmby CBE to follow up his earlier review of winter resilience with an urgent audit of how well highway authorities and transport operators in England have coped with the cold weather between 24 November and 9 December 2010. David’s report to me is published today (transportwinterresilience.independent. gov.uk) and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
In the main, he has found that the country’s transport systems coped well with the early severe weather during that period. However, given the more recent extreme cold snap, and that forecasts predict snow into the new year, we welcome David’s recommendations on how we can further bolster our resilience. It is now vitally important that those to whom they are addressed take these recommendations forward without delay.
The audit emphasises the volatile nature of British weather, but notes the Met Office’s view that the three severe winters are genuinely independent events. However, as I explained to the House yesterday, I will be assessing advice from the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, on the longer-term implications of the changing climate and the way in which they should influence our investment decisions across the sector in relation to winter resilience.
The report finds that local highway authorities generally coped well with the extreme and early winter conditions, but used a significant amount of their salt stocks in doing so. To assist with salt supply over the Christmas and new year holiday period when deliveries from the mines tend to become more infrequent, I am making available to highways authorities 30,000 tonnes from the national strategic salt supply which was established earlier in the year in response to Quarmby’s first review. I have also asked the Highways Agency to make arrangements for the import of further supplies of salt, up to an additional 250,000 tonnes, to strengthen further our resilience. This is expected to start arriving in January.
But we need to ensure that we make the best possible use of existing stocks, new mine production and imported supplies. As we cannot be sure how long the current severe weather will persist, or how often it will recur this winter, prudence requires that all highway authorities should critically examine their current levels of usage and look for economies to maximise the duration of existing stocks.
Varying spread rates between local highway authorities have been identified as a concern for David Quarmby. I have already asked the UK Roads Liaison Group and the National Winter Service Research Group to prepare additional straightforward guidance on spread rates based on all evidence available, so that all highway authorities can adopt the practice of the best.
The report also refers to the extraordinary events that occurred on the M25 at junction 3 on 30 November. Highways Agency officials have already briefed me on these events, and I look forward to a full report in due course analysing the incident and setting out the lessons that the agency have learnt.
The rail network has been particularly badly affected by the weather this year, perhaps in contrast to the two previous winters. Quarmby’s recommendations here are for the longer term; and I am asking the rail industry to formulate proposals on contingency timetables, real-time information and third rail alternatives. I will also ask them to conduct the recommended review of their operational performance.
Although the focus today is very much on aviation and the problems at Heathrow in particular, this was less of an issue during the period that this report covers and there are therefore no specific recommendations directed at the aviation sector. It is clear, however, that, as a separate piece of work, we will need to work with BAA and the airlines to understand exactly what went wrong at Heathrow over the weekend and why it has taken the airport so long to recover.
I would like to thank David Quarmby, who has delivered this audit report to a very challenging timetable. As with his previous reports, his analysis and recommendations are clear-sighted, and will help the transport sector to improve its resilience to winter weather.
Introduction: Lord Sharkey
Introduction: Lord Ribeiro
Peers
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Selsdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the announcements by the Prime Minister to appoint a number of new life Peers as “working Peers”, what is their definition of a “working Peer”.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, the term “working Peer” has been used since the 1950s to refer to Peers appointed to the House of Lords following nomination by one of the political parties. Such nominations are subject to vetting for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that little bit of history, but is he aware that the official advice given to me is that there is no term “working Peer” and that Members of your Lordships' House, other than the 20 who hold positions and are paid from the public purse, do not work? Will he therefore explain to me whether I am right or wrong, and whether the only term of comparison that I can find in my research is correct; that is, that the nearest relationship is the worker bee? If we do not work, are we all known as drones?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I know that my noble friend speaks for himself in posing these questions. He said that he was glad of my little history lesson. I know that he has done endless research on this question. He is broadly right: there is no statutory basis for the term “working Peer”. It does not appear in the Companion or in our Standing Orders. It has been used in the past as a term of convenience. My view is that all Peers come here to work; no Peer comes here except as a volunteer; and they fully understand the duties that they will have to perform when they get here.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right to say that all Peers come here to work, but is not the question whether there is enough room for them to come given the propensity of the Government to appoint many more of their own Peers to flood this place?
Lord Strathclyde
We know, my Lords, that there is not enough room. However, I am delighted to say that, very shortly, I shall be receiving from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral a report on retirement from the House. I hope that will point us in the right direction of finding ways to reduce our numbers voluntarily or perhaps even otherwise.
Lord Geddes
My Lords, is there not an implication in the style of “working Peer” that those of us who are not deemed to be such are idle?
Lord Strathclyde
That was certainly the view in the 1950s when the term was first introduced. I do not think that it is necessary to use the phrase “working Peer” any more. It is certainly not one that I will use from now on and I shall encourage others not to use it either. I do not think that Peers should encourage being described either as working or non-working Peers.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Could I ask the Leader of the House about working Ministers? Is he satisfied that a significant number of his Front-Bench colleagues are not in receipt of a ministerial salary? Is that not an undesirable trend, which was started by the previous Administration and continued by this one? I declare an interest as someone who was for a considerable time unpaid and latterly was paid.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord deserved exactly what he got. The noble Lord tempts me. This is slightly beyond the scope of the Question. There is a statutory limit to the number of Ministers. I regret that there are Ministers who are unpaid in your Lordships' House but they are all volunteers. They all signed up and knew what they were getting when they started. It is a great honour and a privilege to serve Her Majesty's Government in this House.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When the next crop of Peers is finally in, what will be the proportion of Peers on each of the Benches?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, appointments are entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, but the coalition agreement indicated that, pending long-term reform of the House, we would gradually move towards appointments made more in proportion to the political parties in the House of Commons.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, reports on retirement arrangements, what does my noble friend think should be done, if anything, about those Peers who do not take the enticement but do not speak, do not vote, do not serve on committees and often do not attend?
Lord Strathclyde
That is exactly why I will await the final report of my noble friend: to see whether or not he raises any of those issues.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, could a working definition of a working Peer be a Member of your Lordships' House who spends a lot of hours in the Chamber very properly scrutinising ill thought-out, badly prepared and excessive legislation such as the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill brought in by this Government?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, in many ways, that may well have been a definition of those Peers who worked bravely on behalf of the Opposition in the dark years between 1997 and 2010. However, I indicated in answer to an earlier question that I thought the term “working Peer” was now outdated.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that without financial inducements there is no possibility of any Peer—or very few Peers—retiring?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, when the leave of absence scheme was introduced, several hundred Peers—or in the low hundreds—took advantage of it without financial inducement, so I do not agree with the noble Earl’s premise. I also think that the public would find it very hard to understand why many who had been given the honour of being a Member of the House of Lords should then be paid to leave it.
Prisoners: Diet
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that prisoners receive a healthy diet and are treated reasonably.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, prisoners are provided with three meals a day and can choose from a multichoice, preselected menu system which is compiled to cover a minimum of four weeks. This menu format takes account of seasonal variations and prisoner preference and is capable of meeting different dietary requirements, such as religious, cultural, medical and lifestyle needs.
Lord Sheldon
I thank the Minister for that reply. Each of the 85,000 people in our prisons costs £38,000 a year, with as many as seven out of 10 offenders who have been in prison ending up in prison once again. Short-term sentences often bring moderate offenders into long-term crimes. Those who start a probation rather than imprisonment limit the increasing rise in the prison population. Should not the Government support Ken Clarke MP in limiting the increasing rise in prison population?
Lord McNally
I warmly endorse the noble Lord’s last comment, and hope that all noble Lords will take home for their Christmas reading the Green Paper which my department has published. However, welcome as his point was, it was a little far from the Question. I shall just say that the amount that we spend per day on prisoner meals is £2.20.
Baroness Trumpington
Does the Minister think that it was a good idea to get rid of the prison farms, which supplied pork, vegetables and other necessities for prisoners’ well-being?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I do think that it was wrong to get rid of the prison farms. One thing that we are looking at as part of making prison terms working terms is looking again at the idea of prisoners doing farm work. I think that it would be a very good thing to return to.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of Natural Justice, an organisation which in 1997 conducted a random double-blind trial in the young offender establishment in Aylesbury, proving that, given the right mixture of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids, offending and antisocial behaviour came down by 40 per cent. We are currently conducting a second trial. Can the Minister assure me that the second trial will be given a more favourable reception than the previous one, after which it took 11 years to convince government that replication was sensible?
Lord McNally
My Lords, we are following this research very closely. It was conducted by Oxford University and funded by the Wellcome Trust. We understand that it is due to report in 2011 and we will build on the work to which the noble Lord referred, which was based on the Aylesbury Young Offenders' Institute. There is a lot of evidence tying in diet and behaviour, and we look forward to the report, after which the noble Lord will have to wait for our response. I hope that it will be a positive one.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, given the laudable wish to improve the conditions of prisoners, should we not spare a thought at this time of year for the victims of crime, who far outnumber the perpetrators?
Lord McNally
Absolutely. There is no part of the programme that the Ministry of Justice has put forward that puts the perpetrators of crime ahead of the victims. Victims of crime are central to our policy, and all our measures are designed both to help victims and to avoid future victims.
Viscount Falkland
My Lords, will the Minister confirm reports in the newspapers that there has been a marked increase in the number of people serving custodial sentences who are over the age of 65? Is it not possible that many of them will have conditions that require dietary control? How will the Government deal with that? Will it make it much more expensive to look after these people who, in my opinion, should not really be there anyway?
Lord McNally
My Lords, one of the aspects of penal policy at the moment, with longer sentences and a larger prison population, is that there is now a significant number of older prisoners who face many of the problems that my noble friend refers to. That is one of the reasons why in our Green Paper we invite a fundamental and radical look at prisons, at what they are intended to do and at how we respond to these issues.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, what is being done to arrange for halal meat to be served to Muslim prisoners?
Lord McNally
There is a halal option for all prisoners, and Muslim prisoners take advantage of that option.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I was delighted to hear the Minister say that the Government support victims in just the same way as the previous Government did. However, why is the victims panel being abolished? What is going to happen to the Victims Commission? Will he tell the House about the Government’s plans for funding for the Victim Support scheme? My understanding is that they are cutting back severely on funding for victims. How does that work if they are still in favour of victims, as we were?
Lord McNally
A number of these issues will be discussed in the Public Bodies Bill that is going through this House. I am hoping, at some stage during that Bill, to be at this Dispatch Box explaining our policies on these matters. The issue of victims is not simply about victim support groups; it is central to getting at the basic causes of crime and of reoffending. We have a system where 50 per cent of our prisoners reoffend. If we can cut into that, we are cutting down the numbers of prisoners and the victims of crime.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way both to improve the health of the prisoners and to train for the future might be to run a celebrity chefs course as part of the full-time work that the coalition Government are going to be introducing?
Lord McNally
I am not a great fan of celebrity chefs, but that is just a personal opinion; I know how popular they are. The Prison Service has recently been invited to consult on food, nutrition and behaviour within the young offender institutions, and the School Food Trust, a non-departmental body set up by the Department for Education and Skills, is looking into that with the Howard League for Penal Reform. I understand that it is operating on the basis of work done by Mr Jamie Oliver.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister care to comment on the fact that the Government seem reluctant to accept the benefits for children of high-quality and suitable diets at midday and, in schools in deprived areas, at breakfast? Will he transfer his commitment to good quality food for young offenders to all children?
Lord McNally
Absolutely, the noble Baroness is talking common sense, as she often does.
Universities: Alternative Medicine
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to discourage United Kingdom universities from offering Bachelor of Science degrees for courses in alternative medicines such as aromatherapy, reflexology and Chinese medicine.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as chairman of Sense About Science, a charity that promotes evidence-based medicine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, universities decide what they should or should not teach. This is a key protection of academic freedom and helps to maintain the world-class reputation of our higher education institutions.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, with great respect, as lawyers used to say when they meant the opposite, will the Minister convey to his department that that is not an entirely satisfactory Answer? How can the Government justify supporting universities that show no regard for academic standards and offer science degrees in courses which teach that certain essential oils cure specific diseases, areas of the foot lead to pathways to certain inner organs, and health depends on the pattern of energy flows within the body? If the Government believe in evidence-based science, can they really remain indifferent to the fact that some of their funds are used to promote quackery and mumbo-jumbo and call it science?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I again remind my noble friend that it is very important to remember that universities are autonomous bodies and it is for them to make decisions about these matters. The Government have no power to intervene. I have some sympathy with the message that my noble friend is getting across but it would be wrong for the Government to intervene in these matters.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have differentially removed resources from universities on the basis of some of the courses concerned? Does the fact that resources are not being withdrawn from these Bachelor of Science courses suggest that the Government are endorsing the pseudo-science that is implicit within them? If they are not endorsing that pseudo-science, why are they allowing the funding to continue?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to take us back to a debate we had last week. Those matters have been dealt with. I am making clear that it is not for the Government to interfere. We offer guidance to HEFCE. The letter to HEFCE from Dr Vince Cable and David Willetts went out yesterday. That sets out the parameters for HEFCE to make the appropriate decisions about university funding, but it is not right that we should do that.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, given the legislation that went through this House last week, which will now see the taxpayer underwriting degree courses at £9,000 a year, does the Minister accept that the taxpayer should not fund what is little less than quackery in universities such as Thames Valley which offer BSc honours courses in homeopathy?
Lord Henley
My Lords, again I make it clear that it is for the higher education institutions themselves to make these decisions. It would not be right for the Government to interfere.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, in choosing to fund these courses in universities, will HEFCE treat them as science, technology, engineering and medicine courses, in which case they will receive a higher allocation than if they were not treated as such?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I do not know the answer to it but I will certainly make inquiries and write to him. Again, I reiterate the fundamental point that these are matters for HEFCE to decide, not the Government.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a mistake to dismiss the emerging evidence of the benefits of traditional Chinese medicine? I declare two interests. I represented the All-Party Parliamentary China Group at a seminar at Cambridge University last summer in which some very striking evidence was produced. That seminar was attended by six fellows of the Royal Society. I also declare a personal interest in that for the past 10 years I have taken a Chinese mushroom pill daily.
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend is obviously flourishing on his Chinese mushroom pill. I have no strong views about Chinese mushroom pills or other aspects of complementary medicine. However, I want to make it clear that the Government remain neutral on the whole area of complementary and alternative medicines, and we leave all decisions on commissioning and funding in that area to the NHS.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I declare an interest as the patron of the Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine in this country and as someone who has benefited much from it over the years, like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. In that capacity, can I ask the Government to do nothing to discourage these courses, many of which are of very high quality and give assurance to the millions of people in this country who have benefited from alternative and complementary medicine?
Lord Henley
I am sure that the noble Lord has also benefited from his mushrooms over the years. Some noble Lords do and some do not, and different noble Lords have different views. I just want to make it clear that we remain neutral on this issue.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is at the discretion of HEFCE as to how university courses should be funded differentially. Is he actually saying to the House that it is a matter for HEFCE as to whether or not funding for the humanities and social sciences teaching is to be cut by 100 per cent?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we have offered guidance to HEFCE in the letter that I mentioned, which was published yesterday. I will make a copy available to the noble Lord. It is then for HEFCE to make its decisions.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, what does that guidance say about pseudo-science and the courses which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, mentioned in the first place?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will make the letter available to the noble Lord as well.
Africa: Ivory Coast
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the United Nations, the European Union and the African Union about the results of the presidential election in the Ivory Coast.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government have had extensive contact with key international partners in the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union and the west African regional security body ECOWAS in attempts to forestall conflict in the Côte d’Ivoire, following the disputed presidential election. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary agreed with other EU Foreign Ministers on 16 December that the EU would adopt restrictive measures against those obstructing the peace process, including Laurent Gbagbo.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I fear that the EU’s limited sanctions and travel restrictions will not go quite far enough. Not only has Laurent Gbagbo stolen the election from Dr Ouattara, but he has mobilised paramilitary troops, and it has been discovered that nearly 1,000 people are missing. Does the noble Lord agree that the international community now faces a potential Srebrenica moment, whereby the UN may need to withdraw under fire and atrocities will be committed on a large scale? Will he suggest to his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that ECOWAS, and potentially UN peacekeeping troops from Liberia, need to be mobilised to intervene in a more substantive manner than mere sanctions?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend may well be right to say that pressures do not go far enough. Indeed, the EU is now moving on from the proposed targeted travel ban, which includes Mr Gbagbo, his wives and others associated with him, and is considering much more targeted sanctions and freezing assets. On the EU side, more proposals are being put forward, with the active involvement of British officials and colleagues.
At the UN level, the Security Council has expressed very deep concern. There are further problems about trying to get UN sanctions in place, not least because it is supposed that some countries, certainly among the permanent five members of the Security Council, would oppose them. However, the United Nations has rightly insisted, with our full support, that the UN operation in the Côte d’Ivoire—the so-called UNOCI—stays there, despite the fact that ex-President Gbagbo has insisted that it goes. UNOCI is embedded there; it intends to stay there and does not intend to leave. Further pressures will certainly be considered and may well be necessary.
As for Liberia and Senegal becoming involved in other areas, there are difficulties and it is not quite clear what their remit would be. For the moment, the French troops are still there, although they have been told to leave, and the UN troops are there. That is the position at the moment.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Does the Minister not agree that the United Nations force may need something more muscular than what is available to it in the Côte d’Ivoire now? Does not the experience of Sierra Leone show that having an over-the-horizon capability, which can be provided only by countries with fairly sophisticated military forces, is often the best way of deterring the outbreak of fighting?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord has great experience of these things, but different situations demand different approaches. Preventing the rising and particularly ugly conflict in this country from spreading to other areas and affecting everyone's interests may well need a larger military mobilisation. However, for the moment there is a precarious situation in which the UNOCI has insisted on staying there, the army appears to be under the control of ex-President Gbagbo—or President, as he would style himself—and there is a sharp stand-off between the two. That is the position at the moment and it is very hard to comment beyond that. Certainly, any remit for a larger military force would not be at all clear in the present complex situation.
Lord Judd
Does the noble Lord agree that there is a danger of a trend towards tokenism in the international presence in these situations, and that this is disastrous for the effectiveness of the UN? Does he also agree that if this is to be put right, it is absolutely essential that in the Government's approach to the reform of the UN they give priority to increasing the effectiveness of the military planning staff at the disposal of the Secretary-General?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is right that a more effective arrangement of that kind should be followed through in precisely the way that he suggests. However, “putting right” is a big phrase in the present situation. The pressures from outside are bound to have some limitation on them, and within this hapless country there are hideous and dangerous rivalries that I am afraid have been there for many years and are nowhere near being resolved at the moment.
Lord Brett
Quite often, the problems that confront the African public are discussed in your Lordships' House and the solutions seem quite simple. They are not simple in this case, as we well know. Does the noble Lord agree that building up the African Union so that it has both presence and political authority is the only long-term solution to dealing with these kinds of unfortunate events in Africa, although they are becoming rarer? Could I also tempt him, in the spirit of Christmas and given that dictatorship is not limited to Africa, to comment on representations made on the arrest of candidates in the recent election in Belarus?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Belarus is a shade distant from the Côte d'Ivoire, but I will be delighted, in the Christmas spirit, to talk afterwards to the noble Lord about Belarus and indeed about many other places. As for this situation, it is complex and dangerous. We are working to reinforce the will of the African Union in general, and the economic organisation of west African states in particular, to take stronger views. ECOWAS has been quite forward and firm in what it said. It has behind it the driving forces of both Nigeria, which is a gigantic country, and Ghana, which is a successful smaller country. These are sources of authority, and pressure from them, encouraged by us, might make some progress and prevent further slaughter.
Lord Chidgey
Does my noble friend agree that in spite of more than 20 years of internal conflicts, civil war and endemic corruption, the Côte d'Ivoire remains a focus of economic stability in the region? While a solution to the return of democracy and the rule of law may well be best led by UN and African efforts, will our Government commit to providing essential support for the thousands of refugees now fleeing to Liberia and Guinea to escape the massive human rights abuses cited by the UNHCR?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I wish that that was right, and I hope that it becomes right. The areas of stability in the region are Ghana in particular, which is a well governed country, and other countries around such as Nigeria, all of which have some problems but which are large and influential. We hope to see the Côte d'Ivoire come back to being an area of stability, but I am afraid that at this moment it certainly is not.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Republic of Indonesia) Order 2010
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford
That the draft order laid before the House on 15 November be approved.
Relevant Documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 20 December.
Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8 November be approved.
Relevant Documents: 7th and 8th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Re-Export Controls Bill [HL]
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Identity Documents Bill
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:23 - Division on adjournment of consideration of Motion A. - Ayes: 156 / Noes: 112 - Adjournment of consideration of Motion A agreed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I must say that I am rather disappointed that the Minister has not sought to give any explanation at all as to why the Government have not given further consideration to this matter. In fact, it is quite extraordinary that she gave no explanation at all to your Lordships’ House.
On 12 November, this House agreed by a substantial majority to an amendment to give compensation to ID cardholders whose cards are due to be cancelled. The Commons have now sent it back to us on the grounds of financial privilege. As it is a privilege reason, my understanding is that it would be contrary to convention to send back another amendment, which would clearly invite the same response. The debate this afternoon none the less affords an opportunity to the House to indicate to the Minister the strength of feeling on this matter and, even at this late stage, to ask the Government to reconsider.
The introduction of ID cards was 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 Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
I am advised that there is nothing before the House to debate at the moment.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
There is a Question before the House that the Commons reason be now considered. Afterwards, a Motion will be called, to which the noble Baroness will speak, and there will then be an opportunity for debate. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wants to contest the consideration at this moment, I understand that it is possible for him so to do. If that is his intention, then we are debating procedurally whether or not to debate Motion A.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, shall I carry on? Perhaps we can have a debate on the general issue. I am most grateful to the Lord Speaker for helping us through that.
Following 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, these cards are to be cancelled within a short time, many years before their due expiry date.
Whatever one’s views on ID cards, noble Lords from all sides of the House were concerned about the Government’s mean-spirited decision to refuse to refund the £30 to those who purchased an ID card. The Home Office Minister, the noble Baroness, has appeared—
Earl Attlee
My Lords, perhaps I may help the House. We are debating whether we should consider the Commons reason. We are not yet debating the Commons reason. If the noble Lord opposite wants to take advantage of our procedure, he is able to do so, but I hope that he will not speak at great length.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. I want to debate the issue, as this amendment has been returned from the Commons, but if the House would prefer the noble Baroness to move her Motion first, I can resume speaking afterwards. Clearly that would be helpful.
The Lord Speaker
I sense that that is the will of the House; so we shall take the procedural Motion now, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity for debate when we get on to Motion A. The question, therefore, is that the Commons reason be now considered.
Motion agreed.
Motion A
Baroness Neville-Jones
That the House do not insist on its amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason given.
“( ) 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”
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, consideration of the Bill during its passage through this House and the other place has recognised that the decision to scrap the ID card and destroy the national identity register was a commitment in the general election manifestos of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party. That commitment formed part of the coalition agreement published on 12 May, and the Government introduced this Bill to Parliament on 26 May. We have acted swiftly in achieving our manifesto commitment and believe that the Bill’s purpose, which is to remove the intrusive ID card scheme and the national identity register from the statute book, has widespread support in the country.
Noble Lords are today focusing on the detail of the decommissioning process rather than on the significance of a Government destroying a national database. The Bill is a major step in removing the state from unnecessary and undesirable intrusion in the personal life of the individual. We should not forget the significance of the Bill, nor should we minimise the landmark action of a Government legislating to get rid of a national database. However, there are costs associated with dismantling the scheme. In incurring those costs, the public must be confident that taxpayers’ money is being spent effectively and efficiently. The ID card scheme and associated work on biometrics and policy development has to date cost the taxpayer £292 million. Further costs of about £5 million will be incurred in dismantling the scheme.
Further spending would be required if we were to provide refunds. I am aware of the strength of sentiment that has been expressed on this point, but this proposal would cost around £400,000. That may not seem much in the grand scheme of spending to date by the previous Administration on ID cards, and it may be that some Members of this House consider it an insignificant sum, but this is not how the coalition Government look at public finance. We are tackling the deficit which we inherited. We are doing that by ensuring that moneys are spent only where necessary and that such spending delivers more for less. Providing a refund on ID cards does not meet any of those criteria.
I am not ignoring the fact that cardholders spent £30 each on a card for which there will be no further use on enactment of this Bill.
Lord Maxton
If no compensation is to be paid, then presumably the card will become the property of the person who holds it. We briefly debated that point when we considered the Bill. Does that mean that the person who now holds the card as their own property, as they are not being given any compensation for it, will be able to use it to prove their identity in certain circumstances, such as for young people in pubs, or whatever else it might be?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we allowed the Minister to lay out her stall, as in doing so she may very well answer the noble Lord’s point. I know that the Minister is very keen that all noble Lords’ questions are answered.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I will respond to the noble Lord’s point. The answer is no. The card does not have value or efficacy because it is no longer attached to a database which would enable it to be a valid document that could prove your identity. It is simply a piece of paper, because there is nothing behind it.
I am not ignoring the fact that the cardholder spent £30 on a card for which there is no further use. During debates here and in the other place opponents of the Bill indicated that the decision to refuse to issue refunds will affect the poorest or the less well off members of society. However, there is no socioeconomic breakdown of cardholders, so neither noble Lords opposite nor the Identity and Passport Service can indicate the economic status of cardholders. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which a person struggling to make ends meet would think that buying an ID card was a necessity. If the ID card scheme was intended to allow travel to Europe or to provide proof of identity to get into pubs and clubs, then, frankly, it is doubtful that we should consider this form of purchase to satisfy the criterion of core household spending.
There is no provision in the Identity Cards Act, which the Benches opposite passed in 2006, for applicants short of cash or on a limited income—
Earl Attlee
My Lords, long experience shows that the best way of dealing with this type of business is to allow the Minister to lay out the current situation and update the House. The noble Lord will have plenty of opportunity to make his points. As I have said before, my noble friend will be very keen to answer them.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I have to say that I think it is quite extraordinary that the noble Earl should find it necessary to try to protect his Minister, who is doing her job and defending as best she can the policy of the Government of the day. I hope that no Minister worthy of the name would need protection of that kind. I would be grateful if the Minister will just answer a simple question. Do the Government realise that there is a fundamental moral issue here? It is not a matter of complex socioeconomic categories—it is a very simple moral issue, is it not? Citizens have bought in good faith from the Government a good or a service and a new Government are now proposing not to deliver. Is that not the action of a dishonest trader? Is that the sort of example which this Government believe it is right to set for the nation?
Lord McNally
My Lords, as there have been a number of interruptions, and we are perhaps following precedents which perhaps should have been challenged before, I shall just read to Members on both sides what the Companion says on this matter:
“A member of the House who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House. It is, however, recognised that a member may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance, in the middle of an argument, or to repeated interruption, or in time-limited proceedings when time is short. Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the member speaking”.
I suggest that we stick to the Companion.
Baroness Neville-Jones
That legislation did not put in place a scheme to offer financial support to buy cards at the point of issue, nor was there any provision for specific groups, based on social or economic factors, or both, to have cards free of charge or at a reduced rate. It was not considered an issue. Clearly the previous Administration did not consider that ID cards were an essential household purchase or a requirement for those who have to live on low levels of income. That remains the case with the refunds policy.
I acknowledge that the intention of noble Lords is to ensure that the individual is protected where appropriate. That is a key and important function of this House. In this case, however, we have to protect the interests of the taxpayer. We should not be spending yet further sums of taxpayers’ money on a scheme that has very little public support and that would be scrapped on enactment of this legislation by Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for intervening rather too early in proceedings. I have listened very carefully to the Minister but, although she says that she has listened, she appears surprisingly unsympathetic to the thousands of people affected. What really worries me is that she is completely oblivious to the precedent that is being set.
At Second Reading, she said that,
“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 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.]
On Report, the argument had advanced. The noble Baroness said:
“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 … is not available for identity cards”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 792.]
Today, we hear this argument about the socioeconomic background of holders of the card. What on earth has that got to do with it? This is a matter of principle.
Let us just think about the wider principle, not just in relation to ID cards and the sum of £30. For example, an incoming Government say that because they disagreed with the original policy of a previous Government, it is just tough luck on members of the public who decided to act on the provision that became available as a result of the actions of the previous Government. Does the Minister not see that, in refusing to refund the £30, she is developing a new principle that will essentially reduce trust in Governments generally?
What policies might this apply to in the future? If we were to accept the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument, it would be open to an opposition party to say, “We don’t agree to a policy being brought in by the current Government”. If, subsequently, that opposition party came into Government, they could simply rescind the policy and refuse to pay any compensation if that policy had involved an outlay of money by members of the public. That is simply not the right way to treat people in this country. For instance, that was not the way in which the previous Government dealt with the assisted places scheme. We abolished that scheme but we allowed children in receipt of an assisted place to complete the remainder of that phase of their education.
It is no wonder that on Report the noble Baroness’s noble friend Lord Vinson described the Government’s position as “morally indefensible”. What is her response to my noble friend Lord Richard who pointed out that,
“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’”? —[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 789.]
What does she say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who thought that the Government were guilty of mis-selling? As he said,
“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”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 787.]
Has she taken on board the comments made by her noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury? On Report, he said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 785.]
On Report, the noble Baroness said that she would look at the matter again. The defeat of the Government after her comments required no less. I would ask her what form her further consideration took. Will she say why the Government are not taking on board the views of this House? She cannot simply hide behind financial privilege.
She also said on Report that she would seek advice on whether the Government risked legal challenge from the holders of ID cards since the Government are essentially confiscating cards without compensation. She was asked by the noble and learned Lord Morris of Aberavon to confirm that the advice she received came from the law officers. Will she inform the House whether the law officers gave such advice?
Finally, I appeal to the noble Baroness to consider the matter again. The Government are setting an extraordinary and dangerous precedent by not paying compensation. Such a precedent goes much wider than ID cards and would be very unfortunate as regards trust in government. She should think again.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, it is one more noxious constitutional innovation on the part of the coalition that the Government seek to pray in aid financial privilege when they do not want to face up to the consequences of their policies and their legislative actions in this House. Historically, I believe, privilege has not been claimed in relation to matters of expenditure. I am very willing to be corrected by noble Lords who are former Speakers or Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons, but that is my belief. There is hardly a policy, a Bill or a statutory instrument introduced by Governments into Parliament that does not involve expenditure. If it ceases to be in order and permissible for this House seriously to consider the legislation and the policies brought in by the Government on the basis that financial privilege means that it is not appropriate for us to do so, we might as well pack up and go home. Such a situation would make an absolute mockery of our claim to be a revising Chamber or, indeed, a proper debating Chamber.
On that point, I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, always seeks to act in the best interests of the House, as does the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but I would say to them that we are a debating Chamber. As my noble friend Lord Davies said, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, is very well able to look after herself. The House respects her and I am sure that she is personally willing to enter into debate.
On the constitutional point, I think that this really is of the greatest importance. It seems both cowardly on the part of the Government and contemptuous of this House that they seek to evade debate and, under a new and bogus claim of financial privilege, seek to prevent us from voting on issues on which we have traditionally been entitled to vote. This is a constitutional innovation of which your Lordships’ House should be aware and upon which it should reflect very carefully indeed.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, we have just listened to the most toe-curling self-righteousness from Members of the Opposition, who were, after all, the ones who introduced the ID cards scheme in the first place. They encouraged people to think that it would be a great thing to have an ID card. The fact that 30,000 people or thereabouts bought ID cards does not necessarily mean that those people thought about whether the cards were a good thing; they were encouraged to think so by the previous Government. Now we have the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, whom I have a lot of time for, saying that the Government will have to face up to the consequences of their policies in this House.
I say to noble Lords opposite that they should all face up to the consequences of their policy of bringing in ID legislation in the first place and of encouraging people to go and buy the identity cards. I am not taking sides on this one—
Baroness O'Cathain
No, I am not. Please listen to what I have said. The self-righteousness coming from the other side is quite sickening.
I abstained in the debate because I felt that there was a moral justification for the money to be repaid to the people who were conned by those opposite into spending money on ID cards. There is no point in denying that by trying to be the people who support everybody out there and by adopting a high moral tone and self-righteousness. Rubbish.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I hope that I will not be accused of being self-righteous if I say that I share the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Howarth of Newport.
Behind the moral issue and the issue of principle, I think that there is a legal issue. The Minister will recall, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that it was suggested to her on the previous occasion when we debated the matter that she might wish to take specific advice from the law officers as to whether the Government’s approach is consistent with this country’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The concern, which is very simple indeed, is that the Bill removes a property right without any compensation, in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR and, therefore, that the amendment that noble Lords approved was not only wise but necessary.
When we last debated this matter, the Minister’s answer was that the ID card remained the property of the Government and therefore there was no difficulty. With respect, however, that is no answer at all. It is very well established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights—indeed, it is common sense—that, when the Government grant a licence or an authorisation to do something, that of itself establishes a property right. If that licence or that authorisation is then removed by the Government, contrary to the expectation that has been created, the Government have a duty, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, to pay compensation. That legal obligation is precisely consistent with the substance of our debate on the previous occasion and with the amendment that was approved by noble Lords.
I therefore join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in asking the Minister to explain whether she has indeed taken specific advice from the law officers, to deal in more detail with the substance of this concern and to explain to noble Lords how it can be that what the Government intend to do is consistent with this country’s international obligations.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
If there is a breach of human rights, of course that is a worry, but it is the job of the Court of Human Rights to put it right. If we are concerned with a matter of principle—I understand what the noble Lord is saying—surely the policy of a previous Government cannot be constitutionally binding on the next Government. Whether it is unfortunate and whether there is criticism, the policy of this Government was in fact accepted by this House. If we have got it wrong and the noble Lord is right, that will not affect the validity of this piece of legislation in this country. However, if an application is later made to the Court of Human Rights, it may decide that the point of principle here is that this Government—I do not always agree with them or, indeed, with any Government—have the entitlement in constitutional principle to reject the advice of the previous Government.
Lord Pannick
I have, of course, enormous respect for the knowledge and judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but on this occasion, with respect, I do not agree with his opinion. It is part of the law of this country that the Minister, like all other Ministers, has a positive duty under the Human Rights Act to confirm to this House and the other place that the legislation that the Government are bringing forward is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the law of this country. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to tell this House, consistent with her duty under the law of this land, why she is confident—if she is—that this proposal is consistent with our international obligations.
Baroness Hamwee
On all previous occasions when we discussed this matter, I was honest with the House that I had some difficulty with it, but is what was the substantive issue then in fact the issue for today? I have been waiting to hear some comment on the Commons reason for disagreeing with this House’s amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, addressed the issue of financial privilege and suggested that we should not accept it. However—and this is an entirely personal view—I think that this may well be an issue that goes to heart of the relationship between the two Houses. I have grave doubts as to whether we should tackle that convention on the back of this Bill. This is an important, stand-alone issue, but it is not one that we should seek to overturn in this manner.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before she sits down—
Earl Attlee
We should listen to the quick intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I agree with the noble Baroness that the constitution issue has to be disentangled from the question of what is immediately to be done about the practical issue—the substance of the policy—in the Government’s rejection of the amendment that was made in this House. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the Lord Speaker, is already engaged in this matter—I am sure that she is—and that she will wish to hold discussions with the Speaker of the House of Commons about the possibility that the doctrine of financial privilege is being extended in a manner that is dangerous to the interests of this House and the fulfilment of its proper responsibilities.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a powerful case on whether or not a right of property has been established. He made an equally powerful case on the last occasion that we debated the matter. I asked then whether advice had been sought by the Minister, particularly from the law officers, as that would have been helpful. I understood that we might be told before Third Reading that that advice had been sought. In the Bill there is a declaration that the legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Having heard the powerful arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is the Minister satisfied that that is the case?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My name was on the amendment and I have listened carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said in opening the debate. Three issues need clarifying before we can safely push this matter forward. The first has been well aired—namely, whether this is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness will tell us very soon whether she has had clear advice from the law officers that it is compatible. I line up with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: it is difficult to comprehend that this confiscatory measure can be consistent with the protocol. That is the first issue.
The second issue has also been well aired—my noble friend Lady Hamwee has just referred to it—namely, whether we can at this juncture pick a fight with the Commons on its reasons. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said and I would be the first to leap on to the barricades if I felt that the privileges of this House were being undermined, but we need clear advice on that. Perhaps the learned Clerk may have something to say. I am very disappointed to see him shake his bewigged head. My own sense, for what it is worth, is that the Commons have a case. The amendment is a specifically money amendment; it specifically commits the Exchequer to compensation at the rate of £30 per ID card surrendered.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does the noble Lord agree that this is about expenditure and not about revenue raising? It is a relevant distinction.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My understanding of the conventions is that we have no right to impose expenditure on the Commons and this is an expenditure provision—an expenditure of £30 per card surrendered. However, that is another matter on which we must have absolutely clear advice. It would be folly for us to go ahead today—
Lord Low of Dalston
If we cannot contest the issue of financial privilege, why is it being raised at this stage when it was not raised when we debated the matter previously? If it is a matter of financial privilege, why was it permissible for this House to debate the matter previously and to pass the amendment that it did? Would it not have been appropriate to make the point that this was a matter of financial privilege and not open to the House at that stage?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his intervention—of course, he is right—but I took some comfort on the day that we debated and passed the amendment from the fact that my noble friend the Minister made no reference to privilege. I took that, obviously fallaciously, as indicating a potential open-mindedness on the part of the coalition Government, my Government, to think again on this issue were we in this House to pass the amendment that we did. That is my third point: regardless of whether the two legal issues here are stoppers, I would have hoped—even at this stage, given that views across this House have been expressed with not a single voice in favour of what the Commons are proposing to do vis-à-vis the amendment—that my noble friend would be able with my other friends in government to do the right thing. The right thing is abundantly clear. My noble friend talked of effectiveness and efficiency. It is not effectiveness or efficiency that we are talking about here; it is fairness, which is the single most important claim made by my Government. I want to see them walk the talk.
Lord Soley
To follow the noble Lord’s speech is rather pleasant, because he put more passion into it than I could hope to put into mine and because I agree with him. I had not intended to intervene, so I shall brief, but I am increasingly concerned about the way in which the procedures both on issues of this nature and in the House more generally are being changed. As my noble friend pointed out, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there is a problem about us overturning what the Commons have done. I am not saying that we should do that now, but I am becoming less clear about financial provisions. Very few issues come back to this House that do not involve some expenditure. If the rule is to be no expenditure, there will be an awful lot of things that we will be unable to pursue. That will affect all sides of this House.
I say again, as I have said on many other issues, that the Government are driving through and changing procedures, which is deeply unsatisfactory for this House. We saw it from the Front Bench today. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is keen to help the House, but to have a Minister telling another Member of the House not to intervene when the other Minister has already accepted the intervention does not fit with the guidance that the House offers. I have my reservations about whether this really is a self-regulating House, but, if it is, one Minister should not intervene to tell a Back-Bencher to sit down and not intervene on a Minister who has already accepted the intervention. It must be wrong. For the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is sadly not in his place, to follow that up in the way that he did was not helpful. The Government have to recognise that they are not in charge of Parliament. Parliament controls government; government should not control Parliament. We are seeing far too much of this. I support my noble friend Lord Howarth in his request to the Speakers of the two Houses to try to clarify this important issue of expenditure and finance-raising.
On the issue itself, the noble Baroness has strayed into the area of the pros and cons of ID cards. I was always unsympathetic to the idea of ID cards, but the Minister has problems coming down the line. She might want to have a word with her colleague the Minister for Health in this House, who was very helpful to me. A couple of months ago, I raised with him the situation that is developing in the health service where GPs’ surgeries are refusing to register patients unless they produce their passports as ID. They will not accept any other form of ID. By taking away the ID card, we are creating a situation where other things become an ID card. Please do not think that this issue is going away. It will be difficult.
That is another part of the noble Baroness’s problem. Frankly, what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said in his intervention is absolutely right. It is sheer common decency that when a Government take over and choose to reverse a policy taken by the previous Government, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, they must make sure that ordinary citizens do not lose out. That is what is wrong with this. I am afraid that it also fits in with the danger of the Government trying to run Parliament and not the other way round.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords speak with great authority on the Human Rights Act, the convention and our obligation to follow the Human Rights Act. On this issue, there are strong cases to be made on both sides and there are abstentions. The reason why the Government may have decided that the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act is simply that the Act is concerned with substantial matters; it is concerned with violation of rights of real value. Whatever one may say about the value of £30, I respectfully suggest to the House that that is not what the Human Rights Act is concerned with. That is one of the reasons why the Human Rights Act has not always been welcomed on all sides of the House.
Lord Sewel
I briefly follow my noble friend Lord Howarth on the substantive issue of the Commons reason. This is a sensitive issue and there are clear conventions that we should not in this House criticise the proceedings of another place—and I would not dream of doing so. However, I wonder whether I can take Members of this House back to another period of Conservative government. I recognise that a declining number of Members of this House were in here at the time of the last Conservative Government. Those of us who were used to delight in the tussles between my noble friend Lady Hollis and my friend but, alas, noble opponent at the time, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on pensions legislation. Frequently, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had to make concessions and was sometimes defeated. The effect of those concessions and defeats was that this House increased government expenditure. That Conservative Government never cried financial privilege.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, before the House reaches a judgment on the Commons reason, there ought to be absolute clarity about the intention of the House of Commons. It is far from clear in the reasons that have been provided that it is the intention of the House of Commons to claim financial privilege. A single reason is given and that is that the amendment that we are considering, which was carried in this place, would impose a charge on the public revenue. In opening the debate, my noble friend explained that as the Government giving priority consideration to the taxpayer over those who have paid for their identity cards. That does not sound like the invocation of the right of the House of Commons in respect of financial privilege. Without some greater authority indicating that that was the Government’s intention, there seems no bar to this House paying serious consideration to the law officers’ views on the legality of what is proposed under the terms of the human rights convention. I hope that the House will not be forced to take a decision without those views being made abundantly clear and without absolute clarity about the intentions of the Commons in bringing forward this sole reason for their disagreement. To my mind it is far from clear. We will establish a bad precedent if we determine that claims can be made lightly, not by the Commons themselves, that their privilege in this respect has been breached.
Lord Maxton
I shall be brief, although I thought that the actions of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, were provocative, to say the least, forcing some of us to make longer speeches than we would have done otherwise.
On the relationship between ourselves and the House of Commons, the important question was asked why we were allowed to vote on the amendment in the first place if, in fact, it was not legally our right to do so. If we voted for it and it went back to the Commons, surely we should be allowed to look at it again and vote on it again if we so wish.
I am one of very few people in the House who came out publicly in support of the ID card and opposed this piece of legislation. I think that we will come back to the issue. I listened to some of the debates last night on the register and the census and that sort of thing and I thought to myself that, if we all had ID cards, it would all be irrelevant and we would not need to go through that process. I am still not at all clear in my own mind as to what the standing is of the ID cards that have been issued. The Government are claiming that the cards are their property, so surely they should ensure that every one of them is returned to them. They should not be leaving that in the hands of private individuals; it is up to the Government to say that the cost of claiming back all the ID cards would be as much as paying compensation to those who have them.
The other point is one that I have consistently raised. Can someone actually use the ID card—perhaps in an exchange between two people, such as a barman or pub owner and a young person? The youngster might say, “I’ve got an ID card”, and show it to the barman, and the barman could say as a result, “That’s fine, I accept you’re over 18”. Is it legal for that person to do that? If the card belongs to the Government, surely the person has no right to use it in that way. Can we get an answer to that question from the Minister? We seem to be in limbo on it. I do not quite know what the standing is of the ID cards held by individuals if they are not being compensated for them in any way whatever.
Lord Palmer
As a compromise to this extraordinarily heated debate, would it not be worth considering that those people who have invested £30 on an ID card could put that cost against their next tax return?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, we have had another lively debate on this subject. Perhaps I can deal with some of the issues to which it has given rise. On compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government would not put forward legislation that they did not believe to be compatible with the convention. We believe this Bill to be compatible with the convention. I hope that that is a clear statement. We believe it to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Can the Minister confirm that the law officers have given such advice? She said on Report that she would find out. I am surprised that here we are, over a month away, and noble Lords who took part in that debate have not yet been informed of that.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I repeat to the House that the Government believe that this legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not think that I am obliged to say whether or not we have consulted the law officers, nor to say what legal advice we have taken. However, we believe it to be compatible with the convention. As we take our duties seriously, that is a clear statement to the House that we believe that we are acting lawfully.
Lord Pannick
Does the Minister appreciate that the question is not simply whether or not the Government are satisfied that the Bill that they are putting forward is compatible with the convention? Will she address the point that on the previous occasion, and in the debate today, a specific concern has been raised about why it is feared that the Government’s position is incompatible with the convention? That is why it was suggested to the Minister on the previous occasion that specific advice should be taken from the law officers on this precise point. I am sure that it would assist the House if the Minister were at least able to say whether she went back to the law officers in the light of the debate on the previous occasion, and in the light of the specific concern that was raised, in order to assure herself and noble Lords that that point had been considered and the Government were satisfied with regard to it.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I do not think that I am able to enlighten the House any further on the question of taking legal advice. We believe our actions to be lawful.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
I have the record of our debate on the previous occasion in Hansard. I asked, and my noble friend Lord Hunt has referred to this:
“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?”.
The Minister replied:
“My Lords, I will confirm the advice that I have received”.
I asked:
“Is the advice from the law officers?”,
and the Minister replied:
“I am not sure that I can confirm that. I will seek to do so before Third Reading”—
that is, confirmation that advice had been received from the law officers.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I think the House knows that it is a strong convention that we do not reveal the source of legal advice. I am confirming to the House that we believe that we are acting lawfully.
Lord Sewel
As I understood it, it is quite right and proper that a Minister does not reveal the nature of the advice that has been received from law officers. It is another matter for the Minister to confirm whether or not advice has been sought, and it is that second question that the House wants an answer to.
Baroness Neville-Jones
Advice is sought on legal points in the normal course of events.
Lord Higgins
The question is really quite simple. When this was debated last time, we understood that my noble friend would go back and take advice from the law officers. What that advice may be is one thing, but can she confirm that she did in fact go back to the law officers and seek their advice?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think what I said was that I could not confirm that the law officers had been consulted, and I cannot confirm that today either. I am afraid that I cannot take this issue any further. We believe that we are acting lawfully; I would hope that that was a good answer to the House. We are acting lawfully.
Lord Low of Dalston
If it is the case that the Minister cannot confirm whether or not the law officers were consulted, is she in fact confirming that she did not go back and seek the advice of the law officers, as the House had requested and as she had undertaken?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am neither confirming nor denying; I am simply saying that I cannot take this any further.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Is it the case that the noble Baroness does not know whether advice has been sought from the law officers, or is it that she thinks it is inappropriate to tell the House whether advice has been sought from the law officers?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I really have nothing more that I can say on this subject. Could I go on to the question of financial—
Lord Clinton-Davis
Why is the noble Baroness unable to answer the very relevant question put by my noble friend?
Baroness Neville-Jones
Because I think it is inappropriate to answer it and I cannot take the matter any further. I am very sorry, but I do not think that I can take this any further. The House has made its point and I have given an answer. The House may not regard this answer as satisfactory.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
On the specific point, the noble Baroness said:
“I will seek to do so before Third Reading”.
That was a promise made to the House in the course of the deliberations. Did she seek to do so before today’s proceedings? Has she made any attempt to do so? We know the conventions, which have been broken over the years. One could give a series of examples of the law officers coming to another place to give advice. They can do so, so it is not a convention that cannot be breached at all, but I come back to the simple statement that the noble Baroness made:
“I will seek to do so before Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 17/11/2010; col. 792.]
Did she seek to do so?
Baroness Neville-Jones
This is becoming rather a sterile exchange. I am not able to enlighten the House further.
Lord Howie of Troon
My Lords, this has become somewhat unsatisfactory. Is it not time to send for the Leader of the House?
Baroness Neville-Jones
This is a matter for the House, but I should like to answer the other points that have been made.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness but she really has not answered the substance of the concern. I suggest that the only way she can do that is by telling the House whether or not the law officers have been consulted. It is a matter for the House what step to take but I suggest to the noble Baroness that the appropriate step for it to take is to adjourn further consideration of this matter until she is able at least to assure it that the concerns that have been expressed by a number of noble Lords have been considered by the law officers. I entirely accept that there is no obligation on the Government to tell the House what the advice of law officers is but it must be assured that they have been consulted on this matter. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to accept that the appropriate step is for further consideration to be adjourned.
Earl Attlee
I think that it is appropriate for the Minister to carry on with the rest of her speech, answer the other questions that noble Lords have asked and wait to see whether further inspiration arrives.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, may I make a suggestion? Would it not be appropriate for the House to adjourn to enable the Minister to seek the advice that is being asked for and then the House could resume soon after that?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend has numerous points to answer. Let us hear what she says and whether she can convince the House to agree with another place.
Lord Soley
That is unacceptable because the noble Baroness gave a commitment to this House, as has been quoted. The answer to the question is a simple yes or no. If she gave that commitment and then did not deliver on it, she needs to say that. The House will not necessarily hang, draw and quarter on the issue, but we need to know the answer. If the Minister cannot answer that question, I am afraid that the Government have to answer the wider question of what they are doing in this regard, given that they are responsible for this department. If she cannot answer the question, the case for adjourning the House while she finds the answer, as the noble Lord has just suggested, or summoning the Leader of the House is very strong. We cannot have a situation whereby other Ministers keep jumping up to defend this Minister; that cannot be right. The Minister must be responsible for what she said at a previous stage and for what she is saying today. If she is not responsible for that, it is a serious matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am glad to see the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms in her place. The position is that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, on Report, told that House that she would seek to take certain actions. It has now become clear that for the House to come to a view on this matter, it is important that it knows the information that noble Lords requested on Report in relation to the law officers. It is equally clear that up to this point the noble Baroness has not been able to satisfy the House. Given that this is almost the end point for the Bill, I would suggest that if she is unable to answer the point, a short adjournment would in fact be sensible and in order.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, I am getting rather exasperated by all these exchanges. Surely, if the House is not satisfied with the replies given by the Minister, the time will come when that can bear on noble Lords’ judgment when they vote. However, the Minister has given her reply and I, for one, think it is high time that this debate came to a conclusion. The Minister has been very generous in giving way. Perhaps I may remind her that she is not obliged to give way. That has been made quite clear already this afternoon, when a long passage from the Companion was read to the House. I respectfully submit that it is about time we followed normal procedures and, if the House does not like the replies given by the Minister, that can be reflected in its vote. However, noble Lords must not disrupt the business of the House by silly points of order.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, suggested that we should resolve this matter by a vote. I am not entirely clear whether it is the position of the Minister that the House should not be entitled to vote because the Government are claiming financial privilege.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is customary, when one Peer in this House asks a question, that permission is granted for an answer to be given, if the Minister wishes to do so, before another Peer gets up. I merely ask that we might follow some of the usual courtesies today.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for the noble Baroness allowing me to respond to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on which, although he is my friend, I have to say I disagree. The points being made are not remotely trivial and I really believe that the House will be much clearer in its mind if we deal with this preliminary matter first, because, frankly, to go ahead and vote when a crucial, central and legal matter is unresolved seems to be the worst of all worlds. That is why I would favour an adjournment, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Dholakia.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, does this not go to the heart of parliamentary government as we know it and understand it in this country? The Minister gave a clear and solemn undertaking on a previous occasion that she would seek the law officers’ advice on a specific point. How can it possibly be “inappropriate”, to use her term, for her now to tell the House whether or not she fulfilled that solemn commitment? It is quite clear to me that if the Minister gives a solemn commitment and then refuses to say even whether that commitment has been fulfilled, and the House does nothing about it and simply goes away, we have abdicated our responsibilities as a Parliament.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I am just not in a position to advise what information has been provided by the law officers, but I can confirm that we are satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the ECHR. I have an answer on the substance. Could we perhaps turn to the question of financial privilege?
Baroness Neville-Jones
The question has been asked as to whether the Government are “sheltering behind financial privilege”. The Government are quite clear that they do not actually think that it is justified to refund this money. The Government’s position is very clear on the substance. As regards the issue of financial privilege, the Commons cannot even make a determination without the House of Lords itself putting forward a proposition. One has to have the proposition from the Lords before the House of Commons can take a view on that. It is obviously then a matter for the Commons to determine. The Government are not going to avail themselves—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is well understood. The Commons did not consider this matter; it was simply returned to this House with financial privilege. I have no doubt that that might happen again. The point is that the Government were given a number of weeks to reconsider the matter. The noble Baroness, on Report, wished to dissuade the House from voting and said that she would give the matter further consideration. She has not explained what further consideration has been given and why the Government are sticking to the principle of no compensation despite the clear majority of votes on the matter in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the Government have given it further consideration and decided that they are not going to supply refunds. That was the position of the House of Commons. It is very clear that the Government are not going to avail themselves of the opportunity to waive financial privilege. This amendment would impose a charge on the taxpayer. Our view is that the taxpayer should be saved from having the charge imposed. Citizens are also taxpayers, not simply purchasers of ID cards.
On the substance of the matter, I say that we should have a sense of proportion about £30. It is absolutely not the same as, for instance, the example cited by the noble Lord opposite of assisted places for children. Of course, if a child had an assisted place, their educational career depended on it, and the policy changed, one would not cut off a child who was in mid-educational career. That is utterly different from a payment of £30. We should keep a sense of proportion. We do not believe that the purchase of the card constitutes any kind of contract between the Government and the taxpayer. Therefore, we do not believe that there is an obligation on the Government to refund the money, so the Government do not intend to do so.
The card will no longer have a database behind it to demonstrate its validity. Of course, it will not be an illegal act for someone to use it when they go to the pub. However, it has no legal validity, and one could perfectly well use a passport or driving licence for that purpose. For all these reasons, the Government do not believe that it is right—
Lord Berkeley
Will the Minister explain what would happen if someone used one of these ID cards to go for a short holiday on the continent? It is a lot cheaper to buy an ID card than a passport. She may say that £30 is nothing to people who go on holiday, but that is a slightly arrogant approach. She says that the card could be used in pubs that ask for ID, but that no one will be able to check it against a database. However, we all know, from going into and out of this country, that there are different ways of being checked by electronic means. Will these identity cards still work when one goes through immigration or will they be cancelled?
The Minister says that the database has been abolished. I doubt whether any database ever gets abolished, because MI5 or someone else will want to keep it. At what stage will the ID card not work when one goes through immigration, and what is the other solution? Not everyone has a driving licence—why should they? Will it be the case that one cannot go abroad unless one has a passport, so that going abroad will not be possible for people who cannot afford a passport? I would be glad if the Minister would respond to some of those questions.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The ID cards will not have a database behind them. The previous Government decided that the database should be separate from the passport database. It is not possible to join up the two databases because they are not compatible; that is one of the problems. This database will not exist. Therefore, the ID card, although it might be regarded as a courtesy proof of age, for instance in a pub, will have no legal validity at the border. The receiving country might be willing to accept it, but I fear that the individual might not get back into this country because they would have to show a document that had a database behind it.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, can we return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick? It is a very simple point. The citizen acquires an identity card that becomes his or her possession. The Government, as is their right, withdraw the card and it is nullified. Have the Government fulfilled their obligation not under the Human Rights Act, as we have been invited to do, but under the European convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us? That, for me, is the crucial issue. It is crucial because the Government are required to declare that their legislation complies with the European convention. Can the Minister give that assurance?
Baroness Neville-Jones
Yes, my Lords, I give the assurance that we believe this legislation to be compatible with our commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights. I have tried very hard to answer the House’s points and I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I wish to move that the House do adjourn to allow the noble Baroness the Minister to seek further advice so that the House may be allowed to hear the response that she should have given to noble Lords following her commitment on Report. I should like to move that further consideration of Motion A be adjourned.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I strongly oppose the question that the House do now adjourn. We need to determine this matter now.
The Lord Speaker
It is perfectly in order for the noble Earl to oppose the question after I have put it to the House, so perhaps I may do that. The question, as I understand it, is that further consideration of Motion A be now adjourned.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I strongly oppose the question that we adjourn this debate. We have had a good and tough debate. I understand the sensitivities and it has been difficult but we need to determine this matter.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a brief business statement at this point. With the consent of the usual channels, it is proposed that we should first continue with the normal business on the Order Paper, which means that we will now deal with the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which I understand are merely formal. We will then begin Second Reading on the Loans to Ireland Bill and take the first three speakers; that is, my noble friend Lord Sassoon, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lord Newby. The proposal is that the House will then adjourn proceedings on Second Reading so that we might return to consideration of the proceedings on the Identity Documents Bill, at which point I will invite my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones to make a statement to the House to clarify matters which have clearly been of great concern to noble Lords. I hope that this clarifies the issues. I appreciate that the Clerks and the Lord Speaker will advise on the words of procedure that I should now adopt.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I should like to clarify that on this side of the House we are entirely in agreement with what the noble Baroness has put before your Lordships. It is a sensible way to proceed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that there are two Motions, the first of which is that further consideration on Motion A should be postponed. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the second Motion is that that further consideration of the Commons reason be now adjourned. I beg to move.
Loans to Ireland Bill
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to ask for authority to make a bilateral loan to Ireland as part of the multinational assistance programme for that country. This is the right action to take, given our country’s close economic, financial and political connections to Ireland. By passing this Bill today, the UK will be ready, come the new year, to meet its commitments to one of our closest international partners.
The legislation before the House today is narrow in scope but it is still enabling legislation. It will sit alongside the actual loan agreement, which will set out the details of what we offer Ireland. I intend to address the substance of both the legislation and the loan agreement. Before that, however, I would like to remind the House of how Ireland ended up in its current predicament.
Over this year, it became increasingly clear that the situation in the Irish economy was unsustainable. Irish banks had become almost wholly reliant on central bank funding to maintain their operations. At the same time, Ireland’s market interest rates rose to record levels and its sovereign debt markets have now effectively closed, with little prospect of reopening.
This situation cannot go on. So, on the weekend of 20 November, Ireland’s Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, made a formal request for international financial assistance. The United Kingdom, alongside the IMF, the EU, the euro area and other member states, made an agreement in principle to take part in an assistance package to Ireland. At the end of November, Ireland agreed with the IMF and the EU a three-year financial assistance package worth €85 billion. The money will be used as follows: from that total, €35 billion will be used to support Ireland’s banking sector, with €10 billion going towards immediate bank recapitalisation. The remaining €50 billion will be used for sovereign debt support.
In terms of contributions to the cost of the package, Ireland itself will provide €17.5 billion towards the total. The remaining €67.5 billion will be split, with one-third coming from the IMF, one-third from the European financial stability mechanism and one-third from the euro area facility and bilateral loans from the UK, Sweden and Denmark.
This is a significant package that will help Ireland deal with its problems and restore stability to its economy. It will help it recapitalise its banks and set up a contingency reserve for future problems. It will also help the Irish authorities cover the shortfall in their budget, which was presented to the Irish Parliament earlier this month.
I understand that some noble Lords may have concerns about the size and the timing of the loan. Indeed, some may be asking why we are extending a loan to Ireland in the first instance. We are doing this because it is overwhelmingly in our national interest that we have a strong Irish economy and a stable banking system. This is not just about the Irish economy and Irish jobs; it is about the British economy and British jobs.
A loan does not add to our deficit; any increase in borrowing is matched by the commitment of Ireland to repay it with interest. Ireland is the fifth-largest market for British exporters, and accounts for 5 per cent of our total exports. Ireland is also the only country with which we share a land border, and in Northern Ireland our economies have particularly close ties.
Just as our two economies are linked, our business and banking sectors are also interconnected. More Irish companies are listed in London than companies from any other foreign country. In Northern Ireland, two of the four largest high-street banks are Irish-owned, accounting for almost a quarter of personal accounts. Our own banking sector has a considerable exposure to Ireland.
I should stress, however, that the UK’s banks are sufficiently well capitalised to more than manage the impact from the situation in Ireland. But one thing is clear: it is undoubtedly in Britain’s national interest that we have a growing Irish economy and a stable Irish banking system. That is the purpose of this Bill.
The Bill has two substantive clauses. Clause 1 sets out the parameters under which the Treasury may make payments under UK loans to Ireland. The total international assistance package, including our contribution, is denominated in euros. However, our bilateral loan will be made in sterling. Subsection (3) includes a cap on the total size of our bilateral loan of £3.25 billion. This will be the total size of our bilateral loan to Ireland, and the period over which these loans may be paid out will end on 8 December 2015, five years after the Bill was first published.
I would like to make it clear that there is no expectation that we will have to make further loans to Ireland in the future. This is reflected in subsection (4), which is intended to prevent an increase in the size of the loan unless an order is made by statutory instrument. But because the loan is denominated in sterling, a mechanism is needed to accommodate potential changes in the exchange rate in the period between the publication of the Bill and the signing of the loan agreement. Therefore, the Bill allows the Treasury, under subsections (4) to (7), to make an order once the Bill is in force to increase the limit, as long as this is done solely to take account of exchange rate fluctuations between now and 30 days after Royal Assent without further parliamentary procedure. Let me be clear: any increase in any other circumstances or for any other reason would require approval in another place. This is something that I and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not envisage happening. We also expect full repayment to be made over the term of the loan.
We want the process to be as open and transparent as possible. Clause 2 therefore creates a requirement for the Treasury to prepare and lay before Parliament a report every six months on any payments made by the Treasury by way of a loan to Ireland, the original term of each loan, any sums received by the Treasury by way of interest or repayment of such loans, the amounts outstanding, and the remaining terms of any outstanding loans.
I would like to update the House on the main terms of the bilateral loan, which we have agreed in principle with the Irish authorities and have made available in the Library of the House. The loan will be drawn in eight tranches, each with a seven-and-a-half-year term. This is in line with the terms for both the European and IMF loans. The first tranche of our loan will be available to be disbursed in September 2011 and the interest rate charged on each tranche of the loan will be fixed specifically for that tranche. This will be set by adding a fixed margin of 2.25 percentage points to the appropriate market-determined interest rate, the sterling seven-and-a-half-year swap rate, at the time of disbursement. For example, at present, the estimated interest rate on the first tranche of the UK loan would be the sterling seven-a-and-a-half-year swap rate in September 2011 plus 2.25 percentage points. That margin was set to give an estimated interest rate of 5.9 per cent for the first tranche of the loan.
The rate on our bilateral loan is slightly higher than the estimated rate of 5.7 per cent for the first tranche of IMF and EFSM funds, but it is also slightly lower than the estimated 6.1 per cent rate the EFSF will charge on its first tranche of lending. This reflects the different costs of funding and is a measure of the international confidence in the UK’s public finances. We will charge interest every six months and there will be a repayment of principal at the end of the seven-and-a-half-year term of each tranche. As with the IMF, there will also be a commitment fee for making this loan. We will charge half a percentage point on the total amounts that may be drawn down under the loan agreement for the forthcoming 12-month period. If the loan is drawn the fee will be waived, effectively replaced with the interest charged on the loan.
There are two conditions on the loan set out in the terms, to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. The first condition is that the IMF as well as the EU must be satisfied that Ireland is complying with the agreed restructuring plan. This is a very important safeguard. The second crucial condition is that there are to be no amendments to the restructuring plan that could have a material adverse financial impact on the UK operations of Anglo Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland. Given the scale of their operation in the UK, this is vital.
The official advice from the Treasury is that this loan represents value for money for the British taxpayer while being in line with the terms offered by both the IMF and the euro area. A summary of the key terms of the agreement and a final written agreement will be forthcoming shortly.
One thing is clear: Ireland is a friend, and a friend in need. Because of the steps we have taken, our economy is currently in a far stronger position than Ireland’s; that is why we are able to offer such reasonable and sensible terms for our bilateral loan to Ireland.
I should like to talk briefly about a related matter which I know is of interest to this House: the proposed permanent stability mechanism for euro area economies. Both my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been very clear that when it comes to putting in place a permanent mechanism, the UK should not be part of it. The time has come for the euro area to put in place its own mechanism for dealing with the imbalances. It needs to be part of a comprehensive solution that sees countries addressing more decisively their own problems, including in their banking systems. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is clear from the recent Council conclusions that the mechanism will be for:
“Member states whose currency is in the euro”.
Britain therefore will not be part of it.
Since our coalition Government came into office, we have taken action to put our own house in order. We are now in a strong position that enables us to help Ireland, our closest neighbour, in its hour of need. As I have said, this is clearly in our national interest. A strong Ireland—indeed, a strong Europe—is vital to the success of the British economy. Today’s Bill will help to ensure this. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, first I apologise most sincerely to the Minister for not being in the House for the start of his speech. I was trying to catch what his ministerial colleague Mr Lidington was saying to us in evidence in the EU Committee about the permanent mechanism.
I support very strongly the principle of helping Ireland in its hour of need. The case seems self-evident given the interconnectedness of our economies, with 5 per cent of our exports going to the Republic, and the consequences for us of a collapse of its economy, which would be serious, not least for British banks.
No simple solution such as coming out of the euro is available for Ireland, as a lot of people who opposed the legislation seemed to think. It is worth bearing in mind that, were a member state to try to come out of the euro, there would be a very big devaluation. That would cause a collapse in living standards and purchasing power, which would have knock-on economic consequences particularly, in Ireland’s case, for Britain. Moreover, its debt would continue to be denominated in euro. As the new currency had depreciated, there would almost certainly be a default that required a restructuring of that debt, again with very severe consequences for the British financial system.
However, while I fully support the objectives of the Bill, I dislike it considerably. I dislike it because of its bilateral nature. The Government are profoundly wrong in the working assumptions that lie behind this bilateral Bill: that the euro problem is a problem for the eurozone, that it is for the eurozone to sort itself out, and that it is none of our business. That is profoundly misguided and not in the UK’s national interest.
It is wrong for three reasons. First, as we in Britain seek the necessary rebalancing of our economy towards exports and investment, it is absolutely clear that we are dependent on very strong growth in the euro area, which is our biggest market. I know that the rest of the world is growing much more strongly and Asia is growing very strongly indeed, but Germany, more than the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union, is getting the most benefit out of that global expansion. We will be the beneficiaries of that German growth in the eurozone. We live in Britain today in an economy that is deeply integrated into the rest of Europe. Our fortunes are dependent on the rest of Europe. It is completely misleading to talk about their problems over there and think that we can sort out our problems over here as though they are completely separate questions.
Secondly, our banks are extremely interconnected. I was reading the Bank of England’s report on financial stability, which was published last week. It states:
“UK banks’ holdings of sovereign debt issued by countries under heightened strain are relatively small. But total claims on these economies, including lending to households and businesses, are larger ... Losses on such lending could increase were heightened sovereign concerns to be accompanied by weakening economic conditions. Credit risk could also be amplified by the interconnectedness of European banking systems. UK banks have claims of almost £300 billion on France and Germany, whose banking systems are more heavily exposed to the most affected economies”.
The Bank of England argues that there is strong interconnectedness, and we must think in those terms, not that we are something separate and apart.
Thirdly, when there is a crisis, we will end up paying for it just as if we were in the eurozone. I looked at the Hansard report of the debate in the other place on this subject and at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say about it. He said that,
“our contribution has been calculated on the basis of what we would have paid if we had been part of the facility”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/10; col. 946.]
In other words, it is a bilateral contribution but it is based on a calculation of what we would have paid if we had joined. Mr George Osborne goes on to say:
“We are paying pretty much exactly what we would have paid if we had been a member of the euro”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/10; col. 948.]
We cannot avoid our obligations to the rest of the European Union by pretending that this is something apart from us.
What is going on here is that UK politics is taking priority over the national interest. Clearly, we in Britain are in this up to our necks. Our banks are in it up to their necks and our prospects for growth are dependent on the euro area. Instead of the Prime Minister saying, “This is nothing to do with us”, he should be doing today what Gordon Brown did in October 2008; he should go to the summit of the eurozone countries and say, “Here is the plan to rescue the banks in the area. Britain has a vital interest in being part of this”. Instead, we get a washing of the hands of Britain's role. It is clear that this policy will not last. I looked at what various economic experts were saying about the likely pattern of what was likely to happen in the eurozone. It is difficult for the Government to comment on this because no Government can forecast that there will be defaults.
I looked at an article by the one professor who forecast the crash of 2007 and 2008—Professor Roubini. In his view, what he describes as the current strategy of kicking the can down the road will soon reach its limits. He goes on to argue that,
“Europe must … implement early orderly restructurings of distressed sovereigns’ public debt”.
The consequence of the orderly restructuring of distressed foreign debt would be the necessity also to carry out another restructuring of the European banking system, in which Britain’s banks are intimately involved. Instead of doing these bilateral things, we should be putting ourselves at the heart of Europe and of the argument about what needs to be done in order to rescue the European economy. What we are seeing here is a policy for marginalising Britain that is profoundly against our national interests. We will pay a very high price for it in future, because when the new mechanism is set up the key economic decisions will be taken by the eurozone, which will go along to ECOFIN, and Britain will be forced to agree with what the eurozone has decided because decisions are taken by qualified majority voting.
This principle of staying out and doing bilateral deals is a very bad policy for Britain. It is putting playing the politics of the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch before a real, patriotic sense of where our national interest lies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, during the noble Lord’s remarks I think that I heard him say that British prospects for growth depend on the eurozone. Could he enlighten us as to his views on the prospects for trade in the rest of the world?
Lord Liddle
I touched on that subject, because I said that Germany was taking far better advantage of global growth than we are at present. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to try to expand our exports in India, China and other countries, but the fact is that German export success benefits us in the growth in the eurozone, which accounts for half our exports.
Lord Newby
I thank the Minister for his very clear introduction to the debate. I was slightly concerned, however, that he did not refer the House with the degree of attention that it may deserve to paragraph 21 of the Explanatory Notes, which deals with the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. I was tempted to ask him whether the law officers had been consulted before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the statement that,
“pursuant to section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 … the Bill is compatible with the Convention rights”.
As this is the first time that we have debated the Bill, the Minister has not had the chance to give any undertaking to speak to the law officers, and it would be invidious to ask him to do so. However, one hopes that that will not be necessary.
Was there any alternative to the loan and the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has explained, there was not. If the EU had not intervened in the dramatic way in which it did, it is almost certain that Ireland would have had to default and leave the euro. That would have been bad not only for the eurozone but for the UK. It would have been bad for the UK for trade reasons—I shall come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, a bit later in my speech—as we have a large volume of exports to Ireland. Indeed, 40 per cent of Northern Ireland’s exports go to the Republic. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will expand on that point.
The prospect of Northern Ireland, as a depressed region of the United Kingdom, suffering significantly as the result of a major crisis in the Republic would have had not just a severe impact on Northern Ireland but, obviously, a severe knock-on effect here, including to the public finances. We would have had, in effect, to have filled in some of the hole that would have been knocked in the Northern Ireland economy. Such a crisis would also have been bad for the UK because of the exposure of UK banks. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, the Bank of England has set out starkly the scale of that issue. A default would have led to instability in sovereign debt markets more generally and could have increased the costs of UK government borrowing.
That does not necessarily mean that we agree with absolutely everything that is being done to restructure the Irish banking system. The arguments for establishing the National Asset Management Agency can be made either way. Effectively nationalising all the risks taken by all the Irish banks raises moral-hazard issues, which we have sought to avoid to a considerable extent in the United Kingdom.
Another issue is whether, even with all this activity, we will have been successful in stabilising the Irish economy. To pose the question that Martin Wolf posed in the Financial Times recently, the question is not whether the Irish banking sector is too big to fail but whether it is too big to save. Hopefully, the answer is that the Irish banking sector can be saved as—heaven knows—it is not lacking resources. The amount that has gone in both from the Irish Government and, via them, from the EU is now considerable.
It would have been irresponsible for the UK not to participate in the Irish bailout, but the Irish problem is not the only issue facing the eurozone. There are broader issues that relate to Greece, Portugal and now Spain and Italy. Given that we are outside the eurozone, it is a logical if inglorious position for us not to commit to taking part in any further bailouts of other member states.
When contemplating this debate, I cast my mind back to the debates that we had a decade ago on whether Britain should join the euro subsequent to, as many noble Lords will remember, the famous five tests. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in his place. Uniquely in my hearing, he was able to make a joke—which at least I laughed at at the time—about whether we should join the euro. At a TUC summer reception, he said that, having been asked by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, what he thought about the five tests, he had replied, “Well, we’ve won one, we’ve lost one, we’ve drawn one, but I think we might win the series in Sydney”. A decade on, a lot has changed both in cricket and in our perceptions of the euro.
At that time, many of us on these Benches supported Britain’s attempts to join the euro. One of the joys of doing a considerable amount of work with Charles Kennedy, as I was doing then, was that we were summoned from time to time to see the Prime Minister for an uplifting talk on matters of common interest and concern, of which the euro was one. At that point, Charles Kennedy was keen to press the case for British membership of the euro on a Prime Minister who was keen but extremely nervous about that prospect. Indeed, he said at the time that he would like to join the euro but he thought that it was impossible to beat both public opinion and the popular press—he could beat one, he thought, but not both—so he did not attempt it. As a result, we are now in a situation in which nobody seriously thinks that we should join the euro in the foreseeable future. Although it is inconceivable—for the reasons given by Tony Blair among many other reasons—that we should join the euro at this point, some of us at least are not absolutely convinced that we took the right decision a decade ago.
However, if I were to dilate on that argument and those tests, I would no doubt keep your Lordships here all evening. I know how much Members—particularly those opposite—hate overlong speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is clearly already extremely impatient with me, and I can understand why that might be the case.
Even though we are agreed that we should not join the euro, two interlinked questions need to be considered—we cannot amend the Bill, and it would be foolish to attempt to do so—in this discussion on the Bill, which gives us an opportunity to range slightly wider. Realistically, what should our role be in terms of ensuring financial stability within Europe? And what should the eurozone do now? As I say, the two issues are inextricably linked, but the first principle should surely be to support eurozone members in doing whatever they agree is prudent to strengthen the working of the eurozone. For example, it would surely be perverse and ridiculous if the Government committed themselves to having a referendum on changes to the EU treaties that eurozone members decided were necessary to allow eurozone members to support each other more effectively. Can the Minister assure us that, as a non-eurozone member, we will wave through any proposed changes to the EU treaties without requiring a referendum in the United Kingdom?
As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has pointed out, the Chancellor is more generally in an extremely odd position when considering the development of the eurozone. The eurozone’s success or failure is obviously of crucial importance to the future of the British economy, as has been exemplified by the situation in Ireland. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are three reasons why the success or failure of the euro and the eurozone is important to us. The first of those reasons, to which he referred—and on which he was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—relates to trade. It seems to me bizarre and sad that we export more to Ireland than to the BRICs combined. However, that may be a slightly misleading figure, as I suspect that the figure includes all the re-exports of goods that come from the rest of the world to Ireland via the UK. For example, I suspect that goods that are shipped from France to Ireland by road through the UK count as UK exports to Ireland. I may be wrong on that, but that may slightly inflate the figure. Even if that is not the case, the figure is still very high.
However, if one wants suddenly to change gear completely and export significantly greater amounts to the BRICs, the problem is that, frankly, that is easier said than done. It is not easy for a small business suddenly to decide to sell its products in China or Brazil, given the problems of language and distance. Therefore, even with the best will in the world, it would take a while before we could re-orientate our trade significantly away from the eurozone, particularly given that our strength rests in exports of services, many of which are easier to export to the eurozone than to the BRICs. That is particularly the case in countries where there are institutional barriers to exports of services. It is not simply that a lawyer or accountant seeking to open an office in India has their work cut out for them but that they cannot do it. Therefore, it would be an extremely difficult challenge for the UK simply to do a handbrake turn and suddenly start newly exporting huge quantities of goods to the BRICs. Therefore, we need the eurozone to do well, because that is where many of our exporters already have links and where, as we grow, they could develop those links significantly more.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, of course I admit that our trade with the eurozone is important, but is the noble Lord aware that our trade with the rest of the world—both inwards and outwards—is in fact increasing very much faster than that with the eurozone? Surely that points the way to the future rather than to the past.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the fact that such trade may be increasing more quickly is not surprising for two reasons. First, it is increasing from a smaller base, so it is easier to achieve a higher percentage increase. Secondly, most of those economies are growing more quickly than the eurozone, so you are feeding into a more buoyant economy. I completely accept that, but my point was slightly different. Incidentally, another problem about exporting to some of those other countries is that the newly passed Bribery Act is making many companies, not least small-to-medium-sized companies, very wary about their ability to export to China or India, for example, because they fear—sometimes rightly and sometimes, no doubt, incorrectly—that they may be faced with business practices there which they need to follow in order to gain access to a market but which they would not have to follow in the eurozone. In the medium term, I am extremely optimistic about the prospects for exports to the BRICs, but in the short term, given that we are starting from a relatively low base, it is a forlorn hope to think that the BRICs can solve our export problems.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I will be extremely brief. In the interests of transparency, would the noble Lord care to share with your Lordships’ House the contents of the note that he has received from his Chief Whip?
Lord Newby
I may be mistaken—I do not know the noble Lord desperately well—but I think that, in a former incarnation, he was a Whip. It is not normal, when asked a question, to pose a question back, but I would be inclined to ask the noble Lord, if the House so allowed me, whether, when he was a Whip, he thought it a good idea that everyone who received a note from him in another place be required to divulge the contents of that note. My guess—I may be wrong—is that he would not necessarily have been desperately happy at that.
Lord Newby
Well, as I am sure the noble Lord is learning, we do things differently in your Lordships' House. I realise that I must make progress.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Even in your Lordships' House, I believe that I am right in saying that the Companion suggests that Second Reading speeches should be curtailed to some 15 minutes. We are now in the 17th minute of the noble Lord's peroration.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. He will be aware that I have been interrupted on a number of occasions. However, I am well aware of the conventions of the House and will happily draw my speech to a conclusion by saying, as I said at the beginning, that we support the Bill.
Identity Documents Bill
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, I acknowledge that Members of your Lordships’ House sought earlier to determine whether I had, following Report, sought to obtain further legal advice. At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that the House will be aware that, by long-standing convention observed by successive Administrations and embodied in the Ministerial Code, the fact that law officers have or have not advised on a particular issue and the content of any advice are not disclosable outside the Government.
I have consulted Hansard and spoken to officials during the adjournment. I did say on Report that I would confirm the advice that we had received on legal aspects. I am able to confirm that I did just that, that the contents of the Bill are compatible with ECHR requirements and that I have given that commitment based on legal advice. I have taken appropriate legal advice at all stages of the Bill, including Report. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the convention of the House, which I have tried to follow, does not enable me to disclose the source of that advice, but I am satisfied that I have taken it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the Minister is fulfilling a commitment to the House. I think that the noble Lord is now graciously allowing her to do so.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, my main intent during the debate has been to fulfil my duty to your Lordships’ House and I have done everything that I can to do that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for coming back to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for entertaining us for so many minutes before she was able to do so. I will be very clear. The Minister has answered one specific point that was raised on Report. However, I remind her that she was asked whether advice was received from the law officers. The noble Baroness said, “I will confirm the advice that I have received”. She has now answered that point. However, she was also asked by my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who is a former law officer, whether the advice was from the law officers. The noble Baroness said:
“I am not sure that I can confirm that. I will seek to do so before Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 792.]
She has not answered that point, nor has she given an assurance to the House that, following Report, she did anything at all in relation to the commitments that she gave.
I hear what the noble Baroness says about the disclosure of the law officers’ advice. That is a separate point to the one asked by my noble and learned friend, who asked whether advice had been sought from the law officers. That is a different issue. On the issue of the availability of advice from the law officers, would the noble Baroness be prepared to let me see that advice on Privy Council terms? The substantive issue that this raises is about Ministers making commitments to the House and then following them up. It is a matter that I will return to in the fullness of time.
The further substantive issue is one of fairness. Thousands of people bought ID cards on the basis that they were for a 10-year period. The Government have decided to withdraw those cards and this Bill enables them to do so. That is parliamentary democracy. We did not oppose the Bill, because we recognised that commitments were made in the manifestos of both parties in the coalition Government. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, the issue is one of fairness. How can it possibly be fair, when a person has bought a card for 10 years, for it to be withdrawn after a matter of months and for no compensation to be given? It is an absolute disgrace.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I will speak briefly about two issues. We certainly accept the convention that the noble Baroness is under no obligation to tell the House what the advice of the law officers was. However, I am surprised, not least in the light of the earlier observations by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, to hear her assert that she is under no obligation to tell the House whether she received advice from the law officers. I wonder whether part of the reason for her difficulty earlier in the afternoon was that the advice of the law officers was not consistent. Perhaps they disagreed among themselves, which put her in an embarrassing and difficult position. Perhaps she would be willing to cast any light on that; if she would, I think that the House would be interested.
The second issue is the one that I raised earlier. I am genuinely unclear, from what the Minister said this afternoon, whether the Government are asserting financial privilege and hiding behind a ruling of the Speaker and whether they are content that this extension of the doctrine of financial privilege to cover matters of expenditure as well as measures concerned with revenue raising is an appropriate new doctrine for them to espouse and to use for their political convenience. As I suggested earlier, if that is the case, there are large implications for this House, which we should ponder and take seriously. Will the Minister tell us in plain terms whether the Government consider that this is a matter of financial privilege and therefore outside the authority and competence of this House to vote on?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, perhaps I might remind the House that we have in a sense invented procedure this afternoon to assist the Minister to make a statement of explanation. Noble Lords will understand that of course we expect a noble Lord on the opposition Front Bench to be able to put the opposition view. Other noble Lords might wish to put very brief questions. We allowed a little latitude to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. Perhaps we might now return to the normal convention of making brief interventions so that my noble friend can return to the assurance, which she has given very clearly to the House, that at all times she has taken the appropriate legal advice and, as she has tried to assure the House, that the Government have acted properly. Of course I understand that matters of parliamentary procedure and privilege, and constitutional issues, have been raised by the opposition Front and Back Benches. I also understand that these will be debated on another day. Our minds today are concentrated on one Bill and one or two Motions.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall confine myself to brief questions. First, the Minister indicated that legal advice had been taken. Will she accept that there is a difference, which concerns noble Lords, between taking legal advice on these matters and taking legal advice from the law officers?
The second matter arises out of the noble Baroness’s statement that it is a convention that Ministers do not confirm whether or not legal advice has been sought from the law officers. Does she accept that it is a different matter if she has given a specific assurance to the House that legal advice will be sought from the law officers and that it is entirely appropriate that she should confirm to the House whether her own assurance has been fulfilled?
My third and final question is: will she also accept that it is not a universal rule that the Government do not tell the House whether legal advice has been sought from the law officers? There are many, many examples of the Government telling this House and the other place that legal advice has been sought from the law officers. Professor Edwards’s book, Law Officers of the Crown, gives many examples, the most recent of which, of course, relates to the legality of the invasion of Iraq.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, it is not clear to me how much more help I can be to the House. I have tried very hard to be of help. Perhaps I can take up the points that have been made. I was asked in the House—I am looking at Hansard—whether the advice was from the law officers. I said that I was not sure but would seek to confirm it. That is indeed what I undertook to do. I am advised that I am not in a position to disclose either the fact of seeking that legal advice or its contents. That is why I am not able to take what I have said to the House this afternoon any further. The only way that I could do that would be—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Baroness may find this disagreeable, but we are fully entitled to ask these questions. She says that she is not in a position to do so but, first, why did she not write to noble Lords following Report? Why does she treat this House with such disrespect? This is not the first time that she has not followed up debates by writing to noble Lords. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, when she says that she is not in a position to disclose, I think that she is saying that, as a Minister, she is not prepared to do so, whereas in fact she could very easily do so.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord has just said. I treat this House with the greatest possible respect and I hope that I command it. I am acting on advice. I am not in a position to comment any further on whether advice was sought from the law officers. I have confirmed to the House that appropriate legal advice was sought at all stages of this legislation.
Loans to Ireland Bill
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bew
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the skilful way in which he introduced the Bill. I approach this subject from a slightly different angle. Both in this House this afternoon and in the other place the main focus of the discussion on the Bill has been, for entirely excellent reasons, economic matters. A case has to be made for the British taxpayer supporting such a loan and it has been very well made in terms of the interdependence of the two economies, particularly the fragility of the Irish banking system and the possible negative knock-on effects within the United Kingdom. Indeed, if I may put it even more bluntly, so far as concerns Northern Ireland there is a great deal to be feared from an implosion of the Irish economy. Therefore, the steps that have been taken on Treasury advice with respect to the Bill seem entirely reasonable and entirely worthy of support.
Although I accept the economic argument that was put so effectively today by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, I suggest that we should look at the Bill in a wider and more historical context. The fact is that historically there has been a traditional Irish suspicion of Britain and its role, which has been reflected in Irish support for whoever the enemy of the United Kingdom has been at a given time, going back to Philip II of Spain and Napoleon of France. In 1916 at the time of the Easter Rising, the insurrectionists made an appeal to their gallant allies in Germany. Therefore, at different points in Irish history, there has been an explicable yearning for an alliance with major continental powers against Britain.
In February 1920, Eamonn de Valera said that if Ireland became independent, it would become the closest possible ally of Britain,
“in a moment of real national danger to either”.
The fact is that Ireland did become independent shortly thereafter but, for much of the time since then, that has not been true. It is hard to say that in the summer of 1940, for example, Ireland acted as the closest possible ally at a moment of real national danger, and there are many other such instances.
However, in recent years there have been attempts to bring about better relations between the two countries. Following what, in the end, turned out to be a false start with the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 and the Good Friday agreement of 1998, we have moved to a new and better place. Not the least of the reasons why it is right for the British Government to take the step that they are now taking is that we are, when faced with dissident terrorism, now dependent to an unusual degree on the excellent security support that we receive from the Irish Government. That is one of many reasons why it is indeed in our national self-interest to behave in the way that the Government now propose.
So we are now in a somewhat better place and we are in a moment when we can, on our side, try to fulfil de Valera’s promise to be the closest possible ally in a moment of real national danger. To make it absolutely clear, this is a moment of real national danger for Ireland and the Irish people. There are moments of great political and economic uncertainty ahead. It is also an interesting moment in that in Irish public debate over the past month there has been much criticism of things that have been said by the German Chancellor, the governor of the Portuguese bank and the governor of the Spanish central bank, but there has been no criticism of substance of anything said by senior politicians in London. In fact, there has been a recognition that the British Government have behaved well in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, who will speak after me, is the co-chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and he will recall the warmth with which the Irish Members of Parliament responded to the initiative taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Therefore, we are in a new moment—a potentially more benign moment—and I want to talk about politics and history, as well as economics, because I think that it is very important that we build on the politics of this moment, as well as fulfil the economic commitments into which we are about to enter. It is very important that we now try to achieve a new relationship between Britain and Ireland—often promised but often illusory following agreement after agreement. That relationship has not been delivered in the way that it was supposed to be. However, since 1998 we have been steadily getting to understand each other better and this is an important moment. At present, I offer my support for the Bill, but I ask the Government not simply to confine their actions here to the narrow economic sphere but to build on all the other political options that are open to them in order to strengthen the association with Dublin and to turn a new page in the history of the relationship between Ireland and Britain.
Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, first, I should perhaps confirm that I am indeed the British co-chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, although in what I say this afternoon I am speaking entirely for myself and not in any way for the assembly. I do not think that this is an interest in the strict sense that your Lordships’ House understands, but for that matter, a lot of the interests that are declared in the course of your Lordships’ debates are not, in the strict sense, interests either. The House is quite right to err on the side of disclosure in that matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, has just indicated, as it happened, our last joint meeting as representatives of the legislatures of these islands occurred on 20 and 21 November, at exactly the time that the crisis which is the reason for the Bill was coming to a head. Our Irish colleagues were, indeed, somewhat distracted during our meetings over those days, as your Lordships will guess. It certainly gave us all a greater insight into the stresses that they were under and the political as well as the economic effects of the crisis. I can confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, has just said, that a great deal of gratitude was expressed by our Irish colleagues for the attitude of UK Ministers and, in particular, for some of the Chancellor’s remarks at that time. That has a political importance quite separate from the economic importance of the Bill and the loans it allows.
I strongly support the Bill. As my noble friend the Commercial Secretary has explained, the Bill and the loans it permits are part of the underpinning of the economy and banking system of the Irish Republic. It is important, as other noble Lords have said, for our economy and particularly for the economy of Northern Ireland. It is difficult to express that aspect of this too strongly.
I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to the extent that this is not, of course, the end of such matters. We must expect further strains within the eurozone and, clearly, EU Finance Ministers, including our own, are right to seek agreement on a debt restructuring mechanism, and so on. We in Britain are necessarily involved because our banks are involved, as has been said, but that does not make the Bill wrong. On the contrary, it is right and I support it.
I also support the use of the fast-track procedure, which was devised, after all, by our Constitution Committee and which has proved its worth in this case, although it was questioned in debates in another place. Her Majesty’s Government are to be congratulated on seeking specific legislative authority before signing up to the loans, rather than relying on so-called common-law powers and coming to Parliament afterwards for ratification, which is something that they could have done. The previous Government were accused of having breached the spirit and, arguably, the letter of the Public Accounts Committee Concordat of 1932 which governs these matters. This Government were right not to have risked such condemnation in this case. At the same time, if the Bill had followed normal timings through Parliament, it would have been delayed until well after the loan agreements were likely to be agreed. That is the first reason for the fast-tracking.
The Government also say in the Explanatory Memorandum that fast-tracking is necessary to give confidence to our international partners. I understand that, but it is only part of the matter. The important fact which underlies all this is that markets these days move very swiftly and fast, firm decisions are required to deal with that. I was a Treasury Minister at the time we left the ERM—although I was not involved with that side of the department—so I need no convincing about the power of the markets and the speed with which they can influence events.
Incidentally, there is a tendency to dismiss currency market operations as purely speculators speculating. Of course, there are some operators within those markets who are pure speculators, but the foundation of currency markets—the size of them reflects this—is legitimate traders trying to offset potential currency fluctuations. A board deciding to invest in a new major plant whose operations and building will extend over decades to come needs to insure itself as much as it can against possible currency fluctuations during the time taken to bring it to fruition. Similarly, someone buying or selling large items which take time to deliver can easily find that the profit or loss on the exchange rate can be greater than the profit on the goods themselves. They need to ensure that they are not penalised by currency fluctuations by buying or selling forward. Which of us planning a holiday overseas has not thought about buying some local currency in advance if rates are likely to change? That is not speculation; it is prudent foresight.
I make one further point before I sit down. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not quite accurate when, in debates in another place, he compared the affirmative procedure in Clause 1(4) for agreeing any increase of these loans to new primary legislation. He said that the effect is exactly the same, but it is not; certainly not in this House, which is not involved in the affirmative procedure in Clause 1(5)—quite rightly, given the nature of the Bill. The effect of affirmative orders and primary legislation is not the same, and certainly was not when I was a Member of another place a decade and a half ago. I realise that the timetabling of Bills in another place has made things rather different from when I was there. It means that there is less distinction between affirmative orders and Bills in another place, but what a commentary that is on the way in which primary legislation is now scrutinised there.
However, that is by the way. I support the making of these loans to our friends and neighbours in the Republic and I support the mechanism by which it is being accomplished; namely, this fast-tracked Bill.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I begin by asking the Minister a question. I would have intervened on him earlier, but since I was hoping to speak in the debate I did not want to interrupt him unnecessarily. I think I heard him say that this potential transaction by which we lend three point something billion pounds to the state of Ireland will not increase our borrowing, because the Irish have an obligation to repay. I see the Minister shaking his head, so perhaps I misheard him. If I misheard him, I apologise. Clearly it may not increase net borrowing, because we have a corresponding asset—the Irish obligation to repay—but government borrowing figures are always stated on a gross basis, otherwise they would not be positive at all, because we always have substantial net assets. I thought that there was some confusion about that one phrase that the Minister used, but perhaps he will deal with that in his response. I am grateful to him.
I am very much in favour of the Bill. It seems to me to be absolutely the right measure for two reasons. One reason, which the Government seem rather to dismiss, is that Ireland is a neighbour, a great friend for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, set out, and a member of the European Union. I believe in the notion and the value of solidarity among nations, as in other branches of human affairs. I believe in soft power as well as hard power, in friendship and in good will. I believe in the value of these things, in the value of creating and maintaining them and that it is a mistake if you throw them away. That is an important consideration and I shall come, in a moment, to what I think of the Government’s attitude on that subject.
Secondly, I approve for the reasons that the Government appear to approve of it, which is that we have a very specific, practical and concrete interest in avoiding the kind of systemic crisis which could well be generated by a default by the Irish Government on their bond and other financial obligations, or, indeed, a default by the Irish banks, which are currently being guaranteed by the Irish Government. One default could well trigger another. Clearly, that would create a very difficult situation for us.
My regret about the Bill, how it has been brought before the two Houses of Parliament and the way in which the whole issue has been conducted by the Government is that the Government have given away a lot of the good will that might have been achieved by this gesture by an extremely grudging approach to this transaction. As my noble friend Lord Liddle pointed out, we deliberately decided that we do not want to be part of a collective solution; we want to do these things individually and bilaterally. The Government’s is a rather strange gesture to make, a rather strange signal to send. The Chancellor has been at pains to make clear that he was not responsible for Alistair Darling's agreement that we should join the stability mechanism back in May. Indeed, the Chancellor said in another place:
“I am doing everything I can to ensure that the UK is extricated from the commitment that was entered into, and we are making good progress”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/10; col. 944.]
He said elsewhere in that debate that we will certainly not be part of the permanent mechanism when that is established.
I regret all those things for two reasons. The first is the practical and concrete reason of hard financial national interest; the other relates to my point about good will. In the first instance, there may well be other crises in future. It would be idiotic to exclude the possibility of our need to take part in such support operations in future to avoid some systemic crisis. It is always foolish in life to give up any flexibility. You want to maintain flexibility to respond in different ways. Excluding the idea of being part of a collective mechanism in the EU makes no sense. The other reason, as I said, is that it sends quite the wrong signal, and to my mind reduces the good will created by our decision to support Ireland in this way.
All that reflects an uneasy compromise in the coalition Government. I suspect that the Lib Dems in the Government very much take the view that I take and would have been in favour of this whole operation instinctively on principle in the first place, would then have wanted to negotiate details with our EU partners jointly, and would have had no inhibitions about doing that because they are European partners or members of the eurozone.
I suspect that the advice that the Government received from officials in the Foreign Office was that it would be disastrous, particularly after the centuries of Anglo-Irish history to which my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred—many incidents that are very much to the shame of this country. If we were the only major EU country that declined to take part in the support operation, it would have the most appalling effects on our relationship with Ireland. I imagine that the Foreign Office took that line—at the official level, at least. I imagine that the Treasury and the Bank of England were concerned with the potential systemic crisis and therefore urged the Government to take part.
I suspect that, against that, there were the Tories who, for Eurosceptic and chauvinistic ideological reasons, were reluctant to become party to this transaction and were certainly very keen to ensure that it had nothing to do with our European Union membership or the existence of the eurozone.
That uneasy compromise is reflected in the very grudging way in which the money has been advanced and the very grudging statement that I have just cited from the Chancellor, which I very much regret. I am sorry that I cannot come up with entirely effusive, uncompromising congratulations for the Government on this move, but I am glad that they have taken the right decision, however grudgingly, and I shall be delighted to support them if there is a vote on the subject, which I doubt that there will be.
I have a couple of remarks to make about the general context. So much complete nonsense, and dangerous nonsense, has been talked about the relationship between the euro, the banking crisis and the sovereign debt crisis that we have faced over the past year or two that I feel inspired to comment on it in this debate. It has been said openly and frequently in the Eurosceptic press in this country and by a number of Conservatives in the House of Commons that it shows the weakness of the euro system. It has also been suggested that the solution would be the break-up of the euro and that the countries with substantial debt should leave the eurozone. I regard both those comments as either completely incompetent, if people really do not understand what the logical consequences would be of the actions that they are urging, or frankly irresponsible and unpatriotic, because they do not take into account the interests of this country or are willing to sacrifice the interests of the people of this country for purely ideological, emotional or symbolic reasons.
Of course, the euro had nothing whatever to do with the banking crisis or the sovereign debt crisis. In fact, the sovereign debt crisis would almost certainly have been worse if the euro had not existed. I should be the first to admit that the fiscal rules in the Maastricht treaty—the maximum 3 per cent fiscal deficit unless there was the consent of the Union, and so forth—have not been enforced sufficiently strictly. We all know that now, and we need a tougher and tighter regime with proper monitoring and sanctions in future. Nevertheless, if that regime had not existed at all, people would have had even greater deficits. There is no doubt about that.
There was possibly some accounting fraud in the case of Greece, but if there had been no rules, constraints or restrictions at all, the situation would have been a great deal worse. The euro, far from contributing to the crisis, might—albeit too modestly to have greatly affected the outcome—have had a benign influence. As for the idea that the solution lies in breaking up the euro, my noble friend Lord Liddle has already commented on that. I thoroughly agree with him that that would be an astonishingly self-destructive, and therefore I say advisedly irresponsible and unpatriotic, view.
Undoubtedly, if the countries that are affected by the sovereign debt crisis—Spain, Ireland, Portugal or Greece— were to leave the euro, their currencies, whatever they might be, the successor drachma or punt No. 2, would suffer the most tremendous devaluation. As their liabilities are largely denominated in euros, they would find it completely impossible even to begin to meet the burden of that indebtedness. The result would be defaults or a massive restructuring that was far greater than any restructuring that might take place in an orderly fashion in the context of agreement within the EU or the eurozone. That would mean that our banks would have to write off substantial assets, reduce the size of their balance sheets and reduce their credit creation in this country; that the economy would suffer; that jobs would be lost; and so forth. That would be a deeply regrettable state of affairs and it is thoroughly irresponsible to wish that to happen.
I trust that people will be guided by a rational assessment of the national interest rather than by an emotional desire to see the eurozone collapse irrespective of the consequence for either our partners in the eurozone or us. There is no doubt that the euro is not a part of this crisis. It is not a part of the problem and it is not a contributor to the problem. It has been at least a minor reducer of the scale of the problem. It must be an essential part of the solution.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I do not disagree with much of what the noble Lord has said, but I think he is slightly overstating his case. It reminds me of when I went to Brussels and the European Commission told me that absolute disaster was going to follow when the rouble broke up into individual countries. The Commission sounded just like the noble Lord. However, let us leave that aside.
The noble Lord slightly overstated his case. Does he not think that the convergence of bond yields within the eurozone was a contributor to what happened, because the bond markets ceased to look at countries individually and the convergence of yields encouraged countries to spend too much and to borrow too much? The failure of the markets to distinguish between countries and that convergence of bond yields, which came from the view that Germany would ultimately bail out the other countries, was a contributing factor.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s indictment of the financial markets and a lot of lenders. I should say that I was a banker myself and sat on the board of a bank, Morgan Grenfell, which had a considerable lending book as well as being an investment bank at the time, and frequently sat on the credit committee meetings we had. I am appalled by the mistakes made by professional bankers in not wanting to look at the nature and unravel the packages of a class of asset—securitised debt packages, essentially, which were becoming very important as a class of their assets. I equally quite agree with the noble Lord that the bond markets were failing to price risk correctly in exactly the way that he describes. The rating agencies bear a tremendous part of the failings, the fault and the guilt for creating this crisis. Many bankers’ excuse is, “We thought we were buying paper with an AAA credit rating and in fact the credit agencies weren’t doing their job properly in unravelling these packages and seeing that what was in them was absolutely rubbish”.
I agree totally with—I think of calling him “my right honourable friend”—the noble Lord in what he said in indictment of the financial markets. I think that is the problem. It is not an indictment of the currency in existence at the time any more than you can say that the enormous failings of the American banking markets, the American bond markets or the American rating agencies were the fault of the fact that they have a currency called the dollar.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I hesitate to remind the noble Lord, but I remember him making speeches telling us that if only we were in the euro, we, too, could enjoy these very low bond rates.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Undoubtedly had we been in the euro—and I totally agree with the noble Lord that I was, and remain, a partisan of our joining the euro—as a result we would have had to adopt tighter fiscal policies. The noble Lord may feel that the result of that might not have been entirely unfortunate for the future history of the country. Nevertheless, we would have done, and the counterpart to that would have been that we would have had lower nominal and real interest rates throughout that period. I happen to think that that would have been a good thing as well.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but is he really saying that the predicaments in which economies such as Ireland or Greece, which would have kept their own currency, which would have over a period of years—in Greece’s case, 10 years—floated down on the international markets and which would have their own interest rates and exchange rates, find themselves now have nothing to do with their participation in the euro?
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am very happy to give, I hope, a very unambiguous answer to that as well. I do not believe that there is any virtue in the fluctuation of exchange rates. I believe that exchange rate markets, like other asset markets, fluctuate quite irrationally. They swing far too far, an enormous amount of damage is created, they are never at the theoretical point of equilibrium which some people read about in their textbooks 50 years ago and enormous economic costs are caused by these fluctuations. If you can replace them with a stable currency system, as we did before 1914 with gold, as the eurozone has done, as the United States has done with the dollar and so forth, that is a very good idea, all other things being equal. We can get into the “all other things being equal” on another occasion perhaps. I think that if you take the long 20-year view, Greece, Ireland and Spain have all benefited enormously from their membership of the European Union and the eurozone, and that will continue to be the case. We now have a momentary crisis, which looks very grim at present, but we should not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I applaud the Government’s decision to offer Ireland a loan, and I also applaud the manner in which it was done. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, that it was grudging or anything of that nature. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that the Irish reaction has shown that they recognise that this was done in a full-hearted and generous fashion, and I am very pleased about that. It was done without strings, it was done quickly and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right to emphasise that it was done in the British interest. Britain and Ireland are two neighbouring countries, their economies are very much bound up with each other, what is good for Ireland in terms of prosperity is good for Britain, and it is right that this should be recognised. Others have spoken of the extent to which Ireland is a major export market, of the way that the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic are very much bound together, of the number of British companies that operate in the Republic and, of course, of the exposure of British banks, especially the Royal Bank of Scotland, to the Irish financial sector. In helping Ireland, the Government are not diverting money from worthy causes in the United Kingdom, but are acting to safeguard British jobs, British interests and British taxpayers’ money. The sooner Ireland can return to prosperity, the better for us that will be.
I got the impression, but perhaps I am wrong, that the Minister felt that the measures that have been taken would secure that. I hope he is right, but I have to say that I am not so sure. I feel that further pain may be on the way and that some of the pain may be felt by private lenders. That remains to be seen, and I certainly hope that the measures taken by us and by the other participants in the rescue operation have the desired effect. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bew, I see this very much in the context of the Anglo-Irish relationship, both present day and historical.
There are some who suggest—it may even be that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will express this view—that because Ireland is a member of the eurozone, and we are not, we should somehow stand aloof from it. I think that is absurd. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as the Minister this evening, have repeatedly said that it is in Britain’s interest that the eurozone should be a success. Of course, that does not mean that we have the same responsibilities towards each other as the members of the eurozone, but it does mean that we should recognise the nature of our links with it and the existence of our exposure to it. We are not an offshore island in that sense with a financial system separate and distinct from that of our European neighbours. The whole apparatus of British financial services and the City of London as a great international centre are intimately bound up in the wider European financial system. They are, of course, intimately bound up in the global financial system, but most intimately and most directly they are bound up within the European, and through the European, in the global financial system. The two are not mutually inconsistent. This has been a great source of profit to the United Kingdom. It continues to be so, and Mayor Boris Johnson never ceases to point out the benefits that accrue to London as well as to the United Kingdom.
It is very much in our interest that we should participate, but I part company from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, so far as the permanent mechanism is concerned, and I find myself much closer to the position of the Minister. As I said, we do not have the same obligations and responsibilities to the members of the eurozone as they have to each other, so I feel it is right for us not to sign up to something that would involve us in a permanent obligation. I do not mean by that that we would necessarily wish to stand apart on some future occasion. We might, or we might not. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, drew too much on the Irish example. Our relationship with Ireland is quite different from our relationship with any other European country. However, I can well imagine that circumstances might arise—
Lord Davies of Stamford
It is not surprising that as a man of the world and a former European commissioner, the noble Lord is not someone who is so foolish as to want to exclude any possibility in the future and lose flexibility, but does he not agree that if we are not part of the permanent mechanism, we will not be part of the conversations, we will not be part of the analysis and we will not be part of the decision-making mechanism? We might have the opportunity to come in later on to a deal that has already been put together by others or to try to find some bilateral solution in the face of a much bigger multinational arrangement, but surely that is not a very sensible way of conducting our country’s affairs.
Lord Tugendhat
No, I do not agree with the noble Lord. He draws too clear a distinction between membership and non-membership. I do not want to get diverted, as others have, from the main theme of my speech, but I think that Britain is a substantial member of the European Union. Therefore, conversations do not take place in one room with Britain being excluded entirely. People need to know what Britain is thinking and there has to be a certain interchange.
There are people who thought that if we did not join the euro, we would somehow be excluded from a lot of discussions. There are certainly discussions in which we do not take part and it may be that Ministers are rather relieved sometimes that they do not have to. But Britain is too big an entity to be entirely excluded and only brought in at the end of the discussion when everything has been decided. If Britain is to play a role in a future crisis, people will want to know beforehand what our attitude is likely to be, how far we might be able to go and under what terms we might be able to participate.
That brings me back to my line of march. When perhaps future problems arise, we should look at each of them and take a decision on their merits—certainly recognising our considerable interests in the eurozone; certainly recognising the importance of our membership of the European Union; and certainly recognising our interests in the political stability of different countries. But we should look at these things on their merits, decide our position on each one as it comes along and ensure that the decisions we take are subject to parliamentary approval. We are much more likely to carry confidence in the country and have support from the electorate if we are seen to do it on the merits, rather than if we are seen to have signed up to a certain automaticity.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I have a great deal of respect for what I have described as the pro-European pragmatism of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. He has shown that over the years in many of his contributions to the European debate. But what is being ignored is the point that came out in the Bank of England report from which I quoted; that is, the interconnectedness of our banking systems. Although it may not be the case that British banks have a lot of sovereign debt in Greece, Portugal and Spain, they have a lot of relationships with French and German banks, which have those obligations. Therefore, we would be inextricably bound up if there was a crisis. We should be trying to take a lead in sorting this out, not waiting for the telephone call from Mrs Merkel.
Lord Tugendhat
Again I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, but I do not think that the world works that way. Perhaps I might refer to his former distinguished leader, Gordon Brown. We were not of course part of the eurozone, but, as the noble Lord says, our financial centre is intimately bound up with the rest of Europe. It is a considerable interest of ours. It is a source of profit and a great many things.
When the crisis hit, and the Lehmann Brothers went down in the September, the fact that we were not part of the eurozone did not stop President Sarkozy calling Gordon Brown over to Paris or stop Gordon Brown playing a considerable role in the decisions which were taken. We are not going to have a situation in the European Union where a country as big as this, and as significant as this, is in one place and everyone else is huddled in another, and they do not talk until they have made up their mind. They need to know what we think, they need to know what terms we would come in on and they need to know whether we would be willing to help at one level or at another level.
Of course, I recognise our interconnectedness. Like the noble Lord, I have devoted a good deal of my life to trying to make the interconnectedness greater. But I do not think that if we are not members of the eurozone, we ought to sign up to something which carries with it the automaticity of the permanent mechanism.
I do not entirely expect the Minister to make a comment on my final point. What goes around comes around. I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can claim that on this occasion we are not part of the problem, but that we are part of the solution. He is right. On this occasion, we are part of the solution.
All of us in this House have long memories. All of us know that there have been many times when the United Kingdom has needed support from its friends. All of us know that there have been moments when the United Kingdom has run into difficulty and has looked to others for help. It would be a brave man or woman who would assert that such a situation could never occur again. I am sure that under the stewardship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my noble friend Lord Sassoon, it will not occur under this regime. But who knows when it might and it certainly behoves us in dealing with others to do as thou wouldst be done by.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I start by confirming the clear illegality of bailing out the eurozone, which includes these loans to Ireland. I do so by quoting the French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, from two days ago. She said:
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straight-forward. No bailout”.
She went on to add that the Greek and Irish rescues, as well as the creation of the bailout funds, are,
“major transgressions of the treaty”.
Perhaps I may ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they agree with her.
The fact that what it is doing is illegal has never stopped or troubled the EU juggernaut. I have previously regaled your Lordships with its illegal use of Article 308 of the treaty of Nice. Students of the history of the eventual collapse of the European Union may care to look up a summary of that abuse in our debates on the Lisbon treaty at col. 1073 on 18 June 2008. More recently, we have the EU’s legislation on hedge funds—the alternative investment fund managers directive—which is designed to do much damage to the City of London and hence our tax base. That directive depends for its legal base on Article 53.1 of Lisbon, which is about the mutual recognition of diplomas. Can you believe it?
There is no point in appealing to the Luxembourg Court about any of this because it is not a court of law at all. It is merely the engine of the treaties, as it has often proved in the past. Even so, history suggests that trouble lies ahead when a regime is free to break its own laws with impunity; when it is supported by a puppet court and Parliament; and when its people are powerless to remove it.
I have a couple of questions that were not answered by the Government yesterday in our debate on last week’s European Council. The first came somewhat surprisingly and most welcomely from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the opposition Front Bench. He reminded the Prime Minister of his promise that, if he got any chance of reopening the Lisbon treaty and having a referendum on it, he would take it. The Prime Minister also promised that we would take the first opportunity to repatriate powers to this country, especially social and labour policy, but he has broken that promise, too. Will the noble Lord explain that behaviour today?
The second unanswered question yesterday came from me. It was on whether the Government have made any estimation of the cost for Ireland and in due course, no doubt, for Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy and Belgium to return to their national currencies. What would the cost be? The Government tried to say that this would not be a decision that would affect the United Kingdom, so they refused to answer the question, as they have done in their response to a Written Question. But of course such a decision would affect us, because Ireland and the other countries could devalue their currencies and fix their own interest rates and then have a sporting chance of trading their way out of their present impossible situation. That would mean that we would no longer have to go on pouring billions down the hopeless euro drain, so we are interested in at least knowing the cost involved. Perhaps we could even help them with it. That might be a tremendous bargain, especially as the Government made it clear yesterday and again today that they do not at all rule out sending even more colossal sums to the other countries that I have mentioned. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the answer today.
The Government keep making great play of our trade with the eurozone and with Ireland in particular. It is to safeguard this trade, they say, that we have to borrow such huge sums, which we probably will not get back, when we are cutting our own services at home in an attempt to reduce our deficit and debt. The Minister said in his opening remarks that 5 per cent of our total exports go to Ireland, but do the Government realise that only about 1 per cent of our GDP—of our total economy—goes in trade with Ireland? That is because only 9 per cent of our GDP goes in trade, in deficit, with the EU overall, of which Ireland accounts for about 10 per cent, so that makes 10 per cent of 9 per cent, or 1 per cent to be generous. Then 11 per cent of our GDP goes to the rest of the world, in surplus, and 80 per cent stays right here in the domestic economy. Yet the wonderful deal that we have done as a member of the EU means that Brussels diktats apply to and strangle the whole 100 per cent of our economy. Would the Government care to justify this position? Why is it worth borrowing so much money to safeguard only 1 per cent of our GDP, which would not be lost if we did not? Are we really saying that we would lose all that trade if we did not do this? It is not realistic.
The Government and the Martians in Brussels talk much about growth, how they are stimulating growth and how their bailouts and loans will help it along. Every now and again, I read the Government’s Written Statements about the meetings of the so-called Competition Council in Brussels and I must say that they make me weep. I have yet to detect any bureaucrat or council member contributing to those meetings who has the slightest experience of international competition in the real world. That is no doubt why they and their colleagues in the vast bureaucracy of Brussels have lumbered us with perhaps the most overregulated and least competitive regime in the world. Indeed, even their own Competition Commissioner, Mr Gunter Verheugen, said a couple of years ago that EU overregulation was costing all EU economies some 6 per cent of GDP, or over £60 billion per annum in our case. Just to be jolly, the demographic trend is moving against the continent of Europe as well, so I do not see much hope for growth. I fear that we are on the “Titanic”.
It is not just wild-eyed Eurosceptics like me who are saying that the euro cannot survive and that the sooner it goes, the better. Just yesterday, the head of the world’s largest bond fund called on Greece, Ireland and Portugal to leave the euro and restructure their debts, unless the eurozone is to submit to complete fiscal union, which seems unlikely. He went on to say that EU leaders were too quick to congratulate themselves on saving the euro last week, with a permanent bailout fund from 2013, which in his view comes far too late. But the EU strategy of forcing heavily indebted countries to undergo draconian fiscal austerity without offsetting stimulus is unworkable. The austerity policies are stifling the growth that is needed to stabilise debt levels. He is not alone in that. The chief European economist at RBS says that last week’s Europe summit failed to grasp the nettle:
“None of the policy responses put in place in Europe since the start of the crisis provides a credible backstop to prevent further contagion”.
Those policy responses include our loans to Ireland. We should not be making them.
It is not just the euro that was designed for disaster; so was the whole project of European integration, for which the euro was supposed to be the cement to hold it together. The idea behind the great project was honourable enough, but it has turned out to be misguided. That idea was that the nation states had been responsible for the bloodshed of two world wars and the long history of carnage in Europe. Those nation states therefore had to be emasculated and diluted into a new form of supranational government, run by bureaucrats. That is the big idea. That is why the Commission still has the monopoly of proposing and enforcing EU laws, which I remind noble Lords are made in secret. It is why there is a sham Parliament and a sham court, with all of their denizens interested only in the gravy train which rolls on without the consent of the people.
If there is one small candle of light in all this gloom, I hope that it is that more of the people of Europe will come to see that the whole EU project is also misguided. Those who are suffering from the euro are already getting very angry. The riots and strikes in Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain are entirely caused by the project of European integration and its misguided currency and, alas, there is more to come.
In conclusion, I invite your Lordships to stand back for just a moment and consider a Europe without the European Union, without Brussels and Strasbourg, without the Luxembourg Court of so-called Justice. Consider a Europe of 27 national democracies trading freely among themselves and with the other 190 or so countries of the world, none of which has been foolish to join anything like the EU or the euro. What benefit does the EU bring that we could not have through genuine democracy, free trade and friendly collaboration? None, I submit. I hope that none of your Lordships will suggest peace, which was secured by NATO, and for which the EU gets no credit at all. So the EU emperor has no clothes and the quicker the people of Europe realise it, the better for all of us. If the collapse of the euro helps them to do so, that may yet prove to be a blessing in disguise. In the mean time, we should not be helping to prop it up.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, I commend the Government for this loan to Ireland initiative and I commend in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, which emphasised the social relationships. I come from Dumbarton, which has a very big Irish population. Indeed, my own family is part of the Irish diaspora. For many years, we have had very solid social contacts, and there is a part of my former constituency that is known as “Little Donegal”. When the 2001 election was put off until June due to the foot and mouth outbreak, I was advised to go and knock on a number of doors in Donegal to shore up my support, but I felt that my majority was big enough that I did not have to cross the Irish Sea, which proved to be the case. So these social contacts are very important. There have been many fine Irish men and women living in my community for many years, a lot of whom fought with the British Army in the Second World War. They adapted to and assimilated the culture of the UK, notwithstanding the problems existing at a wider level between Ireland and the United Kingdom.
In its latest manifestation, we see the concept of a private debt crisis being transferred to a sovereign debt crisis. To repeat a phrase that has been used a lot in the other place, we are all in this together. That is because what is happening in Ireland affects every other country in the EU, including ourselves here in the UK. The situation is that the banks in Ireland have brought that country to the verge of bankruptcy. The tensions in Ireland that were mentioned earlier have been experienced in other countries. Ireland itself is contributing €17.5 billion from its pension funds to the very important €67 billion bailout, so the people of Ireland are already saying, “It is our money. We are contributing to this. The problem started off in the banks, but as a result of that situation, it has ended up on the streets”.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that we manage this economic process well, taking account of the social instabilities, so that we end up with a sound economic system and a stable social system. As was said earlier, there are good reasons for the UK to provide the loan, not least of which is the fact that Ireland is a major trading partner and that UK banks are exposed in Ireland. Only last week, Lloyds and HBOS declared a £4.3 billion loss on the banking group’s Irish loans. Lloyds said that it had sufficient capital to withstand the loss, but that situation is an illustration of the interdependence that exists between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
As a former Minister for Northern Ireland, I am very much aware of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic—it is so porous that it really is not a border. I well remember chairing an inquiry into the euro in 2002, when I chaired the Treasury Select Committee. One of our visits was to Newry, where the currency in use included the euro because people were travelling there from across the border. That interlink between Northern Ireland and the Republic should make certain that we provide a friend in need with a loan.
If instead of doing that we were to sit on our hands, economic stagnation would take place. We need a strong Europe if we are to make the most of our competitive exchange rate. That is what the Bank of England said. The loan makes historical, economic and social sense, so I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I suppose that, as it is almost the last day before the Christmas Recess, it is right that the Minister should have a good day. He got the Consolidated Fund Bill through the House in four minutes and here he has another Bill that has produced consensual responses from all parts of the House. Indeed, Her Majesty’s Opposition support the measure that the Minister has introduced, which means that he can bask in the general approval of the House for doing so.
However, the Minister would not expect to sit through an hour and a half’s debate without having to reply to a few questions. He would not expect an entirely straightforward ride. I am glad that tonight’s debate has ranged so widely and that we have heard so many expert and considered opinions. The Minister will have a tough job in responding to it. The debate has put the Bill and the Irish loan into context, and for that we should be grateful.
Indeed, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who put our relationship with Ireland into an historic context. Other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord McFall, emphasised the ties between the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is right that we should come to the aid of a nation in great need with which we have close ties and, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, that is also in the British national self-interest. It is important that we put a stop to the catastrophic developments that have set the world back during the past two to three years. Unless those are tackled in a forthright and effective fashion, they will adversely affect our own people in the years to come.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Liddle for emphasising that there are no easy solutions to the situation—and certainly not for Ireland. We see the price that has to be paid for the loan. It is also important to recognise that, given the degree of interconnectedness of our economies, the British response to the situation needs to be one of concern for our neighbours. We have already heard of the significant role that the Irish economy plays in relation to the British economy, but, in terms of a wider Europe, we recognise that without growth in Europe there is no possibility of the British economy developing on an export-led basis out of the present position and into a degree of prosperity and security. We should recognise just how much this Government have invested in such a strategy and that, without growth in Europe, there is no possibility of the British people being able to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifices that we can see are being made on all sides following the Government’s fiscal tightening, of which we have seen only the first stages.
The Minister must also respond to the wider debate reflected in the points made by my noble friend Lord Liddle and, from a different perspective, by my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford. As regards the different issues that the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, mentioned, we recognise that there was a sophisticated debate about the nature in which Britain should relate to Europe—two somewhat different perspectives about future possibilities. I must say that Her Majesty’s Opposition are more in favour of the analysis put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat—namely, that of course Britain must be close to Europe and integrate with Europe in crucial economic decisions. That is bound to be the case as a result of the sheer size of the British economy in relation to the European position and the levels of trade that we carry on. However, there is a strong case for a degree of independence that gives us a position in relation to Europe and also enables us to pursue our own strategies.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, takes that point to the outer extreme by calling for withdrawal from the EU. We are all familiar with the onslaught on the European Community that he has presented tonight with his usual fervour. It is as though he does not recognise that the American economy, which is bigger than Europe’s, has been in colossal trouble over the past couple of years. It is as though only Europe is being faced by these challenges. Of course, that is not so. Another big, major continental economy—the United States—has been suffering the most acute strains. One does not have to go anywhere near Detroit or any of the other major cities—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. However, can he tell us who bailed out the United States?
Lord Davies of Oldham
Well, who has bailed out Europe? We are talking about an economy in Europe that is receiving some assistance—that is the Irish economy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is not forecasting that it will not be long before the British are bailing out the German economy, or anything as ridiculous as that.
Given that many great economies have suffered serious difficulties in the past few years, we should recognise that this Irish crisis is reflective of a global crisis. The problem means that we have to have solutions wider than the national perspective. It also means that the solution proposed for Ireland is not in fact a solution but a bailout. The bailout creates time for the Irish economy and prevents it from descending into the abyss that it had faced. However, let us not pretend that the package is a solution to the needs of the Irish economy and the Irish people or that we will see health in European economies without more obvious programmes and developments on a more extensive scale than we have seen thus far.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that, in the early days of the crisis when Lehman Brothers was in collapse and when the British banks were under tremendous pressure, the previous Administration adopted a global process in response. The then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was concerned to obtain a degree of consensus that would enable the world economies to come to each other’s aid and to present a development that gave some security about growth. We are still looking for that. The Bill is important to one beleaguered economy in Europe but—as the strength of the debate on all sides has shown—it has to be put in the context that we need wider solutions to the issues than bailouts. We are faced with a global crisis.
It is also quite clear that, despite the myth which the Opposition seeks to perpetrate about the British economy, the crisis was not caused by government overspending but by the banks, which had got their structures and investment wrong. That is a common feature across all the significant world economies, and that needs to be recognised.
The Irish are of course to be involved in some degree of austerity, as are the British people under this Government’s perspective—excessive austerity in the view of Her Majesty’s Opposition in comparison to what is needed. The Government have set a limited time in which fiscal balance has to be achieved, but it must surely be recognised that austerity alone is not the answer. After all, the Irish have been through several years of austerity and for 17 continuous months their economy showed negative growth, but they have not been able to avoid the need for a bailout despite the fact that they have been subjected to exactly the fiscal solutions that this Government suggest are the answer for this economy.
I have one or two key questions for the Minister, who I know will enjoy himself before Christmas only if there is sufficient challenge in the debate. He has already been blessed by the consensual approach, on which the whole House is to be congratulated, but I should like to ask him one or two questions. First, is he aware that the size of the UK’s contribution to the rescue package will, over the spending review period, more than outweigh the debt interest savings of which the Chancellor made such play in the spending review Statement? On the basis of the Chancellor’s approach, we are loaning that which we have saved. Secondly, why are we able to find billions for Ireland but could not afford £90 million of strategic investment for Sheffield Forgemasters and the role that it could play in the future of our economy? Thirdly, when will the Government accept the obvious point that, unless we have an approach to the broader issues faced by Europe, we will not get the growth necessary because the markets will not be there to purchase the goods that we hope to produce?
Finally, does not the crisis in Ireland remind us all that the economic crisis was global and that the Government, with their full responsibility for the economy and the welfare of the British people, must recognise that the solutions lie only within a global framework and not in one pursued alone?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate and I am grateful for the contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to the range of contributions made by noble Lords but I think that there has been some polarisation: on one pole, a noble Lord stands in rather lonely isolation, whereas most of the rest of the speakers have been closer to a dramatically different pole.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
The Minister is very generous, but is he aware that the majority of the British people now wish to leave the European Union?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I was talking about where Members of the House stood on the Bill, which is where I ought to concentrate if the noble Lord will permit me.
I began to feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, when he started his response to the debate; I thought that he was going to relieve me of some of my responsibilities. However, his comments then turned in a different direction. He went into an analysis of the UK’s economic challenges—an essay that I do not quite share with him—and then he asked some questions. I shall attempt to respond to his questions and to those of other noble Lords.
The starting point, clearly, is that over the past two years Ireland has faced a series of extraordinarily difficult economic and financial challenges which have resulted in the country having debts of more than 90 per cent of its national income, high unemployment and low levels of growth—and the Irish economy, of course, remains on the brink.
The noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, reminded us of the centrality of the Irish banking situation to the Irish crisis and how the Irish banks became increasingly reliant on central bank funding. In his analysis, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred to trading but made no mention of the interconnectedness of our two banking systems, which is central to the Irish problem and to why it is so important to the UK that we should contribute to finding a solution.
In contrast to Britain’s situation, Ireland’s credit rating remains under threat and its economy continues to struggle. The package we are discussing today is designed to contribute towards Ireland’s solution to its problem. It starts by contributing to the recapitalisation of Ireland’s banks; sets up a contingency reserve to deal with any future problems; and covers the current shortfall in the Irish budget. My noble friend Lord Tugendhat quite rightly questioned whether Ireland will grow sufficiently out of its problems. However, I remind noble Lords that the IMF has been central to the construction of the package and, from its wide experience of similar situations, it understands the importance of growth in an economy such as Ireland’s. I recommend to noble Lords the IMF’s interesting, well written and cogent analysis of the reasons for Ireland getting into this situation, and the logic for the construction of the package which is central to putting the Irish economy back on its feet.
The Bill gives the Treasury the statutory authority to deliver the UK’s bilateral contribution to the package. In this way, the UK will be ready in the new year to help one of our closest international partners in its hour of need. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and to my noble friends Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Tugendhat for pointing out the good will that has been created in Ireland by our response. We are doing this because it is in the economic interests of the UK to do so; nevertheless, it is good that we are doing it for a close friend. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, succinctly put the matter into its Irish historical context. I very much take his point that we need to think about how we build on the good will that has now been created. That point was indirectly touched on by the noble Lord, Lord McFall. It sits somewhat at odds with the stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who painted a picture that I do not recognise. He tried to paint us into an “our problems, their problems” situation. I thought that my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, who has deep and distinguished European experience and contributions to draw on, painted a much more nuanced and balanced picture. Of course, we are at the centre of the European debate. We are engaged with our European partners, not least for the reason that my noble friend gave: that we are one of the largest economies in Europe. Whether it is leading the way on bank stress tests and getting Europe to follow where the UK started on short-term stabilisation, or looking at the other end of the range of issues that needs now to be considered—for example, questions about structural reform programmes, the Europe 2020 vision and the lessons of this crisis—the UK is absolutely at the centre of the discussions.
Lord Liddle
What plan have the British Government and the Prime Minister put forward for the eurozone? Why does the Prime Minister keep saying that it is for the eurozone to sort out its problems, while knowing that so much of the growth that is being forecast, which is absolutely essential to British interests and his own prospects of re-election, requires there to be robust export growth to the eurozone?
Lord Sassoon
These are all factors that mean that we need, with the EU 27, to make sure that the structural reforms are driven through and that we get the benefits of completing the single market project and so on. However, my noble friend Lord Tugendhat again got it exactly right—I would not agree with every nuance of his analysis, but he got the essential point right—in saying that just because we are very positively engaged at the centre of all those other issues does not mean that there are not critical differences, because we are not part of the eurozone and this Government will not take us into it. It is therefore for the eurozone to sort out its own permanent mechanism for dealing with any other issues that arise out of membership of the euro. That is the fundamental difference between the UK’s position and that of other of our partners in Europe. I genuinely fail to see why the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seeks to paint the position in such stark colours. The fact is that we are in a different position from that of a number of the largest trading partners in Europe, which needs to be reflected in the permanent arrangements that will be put in place. My noble friend Lord Tugendhat explained that in much more masterly terms than I will ever be able to do.
Some questions were asked about the economic and market analysis of the situation, not only of how we got here but how we go forward. I listened with interest to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. The rather succinct and pithy remarks of my noble friend better encapsulated the situation in which Europe finds itself and in which it is clear that the fact of the euro cannot be ignored. That takes us back to why the eurozone needs to think about the consequences and the lessons of this crisis for a permanent mechanism.
In answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, I restate that the loan to Ireland does not add to our deficit. It increases the borrowing on one side of the UK’s balance sheet, but we have an asset in terms of the money that will be owed to us by Ireland. There will be an increment to the fiscal position by the net interest margin, estimated at current interest rates to be some £440 million. That is the only element that should go through the current balance.
One or two comments were made on the process of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Tugendhat for their endorsement and recognition of the fast-track approach that we have taken. It is necessary that we give confidence to our European partners and the IMF in putting this package together that the UK is ready at the earliest time to deliver on our commitments. I accept my noble friend Lord Cope’s analysis of the constitutional position in another place.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Perhaps may I press the Minister a little more on what he said about this Irish loan not adding to the fiscal deficit. I understand that he is saying that it does not add to the fiscal deficit because he is setting off one financial asset against a financial liability. Will he confirm, however, that it will add to the public sector borrowing requirement? Some £2.5 billion will have to be borrowed on the financial markets and be accounted for as part of the public sector borrowing requirement which otherwise would not.
Lord Sassoon
Indeed, my Lords, the money advanced to Ireland needs to be funded, but it is precisely because we have stabilised the fiscal position and secured the UK’s AAA credit rating that this matter is not a cause for particular concern.
I have already said why the Government believe that it is right that we should not be part of a permanent bailout mechanism—indeed, this is recognised in the recent Council conclusions. My noble friend Lord Newby asked about the process for adopting the treaty amendment that will be necessary. Parliament must of course give its approval to any treaty change that is agreed by member states, and ratification in the UK will be subject to the terms of the EU Bill that we are bringing forward. A treaty change will be subject to primary legislation. Since there is no question of transfer of competences in this case, the question of a referendum does not arise.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I do not know whether the Minister will come to some of my questions later, but this might be a convenient point to remind him that the amendment in fact gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to fulfil his promise that, if there were to be any treaty changes, he would use them to repatriate powers, particularly social and labour policy. Why does he not do that?
Lord Sassoon
The position is as I have explained it. There is no question of change of competencies in this case and therefore no referendum is required, but it will be the subject of primary legislation. This is not the time, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, to start talking about other things that may or not may not be done in our relationship with Europe. We are talking about the Loans to Ireland Bill and its consequences and the position is completely clear. If the noble Lord would like me to give way, it will only eat into the time to answer his questions and other points that noble Lords have made. I am grateful to him.
I will come to his points immediately. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, questioned the legality of this operation. The first thing that I hope we are completely clear about is that the bilateral loan is being made under domestic UK legislation. That is why we are here today. Provided that your Lordships see fit to give this Bill a clean passage, the question of the legality of this loan will not arise.
If the noble Lord was also, as I suspect he was, harking back to the question of the so-called no-bailout provision in Article 122(2) and the creation of the €60 billion fund, that was agreed by the previous Government. We said at the time that we did not approve of the use of this provision, which was originally intended for natural disasters, to create this mechanism. But it was, and we are where we are. The critical thing is that the current coalition Government have a clear commitment that when in 2013 the new mechanism is put in place this will fall away and not be used again. The question of illegality does not arise. It may be regrettable, but the position is legal.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the noble Lord is being a little unfair to the previous Government. Surely, the decision was taken under Article 122(2) which is by qualified majority vote. That is the very reason the Eurocrats chose the clause that allows mutual support in the event of natural disasters to pass this Act. Through our membership of the European Union and the terms of the treaties that we have signed, there was nothing that the previous Government could do about it. I asked the Minister whether he agreed with the French Finance Minister who said that the whole bailout process is illegal.
Lord Sassoon
The noble Lord is possibly putting a spin on Madame Lagarde’s words that she would not entirely accept. If he wished to correspond with her I am sure she would explain her position. All I can do is explain the Government's position. I was not trying to be unfair to the previous Government but merely stating the facts of the situation as to when the €60 billion bailout fund was agreed. Yes, I accept that if the UK had opposed it, it would have been a matter dealt with under qualified majority voting.
I will spend one minute responding to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I am grateful to him for being clear about the Official Opposition’s support for the Bill. He asked about the amount of the loan and why, if we could devote this amount of money to Ireland, we could not devote it to other causes. He quoted one possible use of funds. As I explained, the loan to Ireland does not affect the fiscal position. We are able to make it without in any way affecting the fiscal position. If it did affect it, we might need to look for other savings, but we are in a position that that is fortunately not required.
The noble Lord mentioned the global dimension. We have talked a lot about the need for the UK to be at the heart of the European debate on this. I completely agree that the global dimension is an important one. We have heard about the importance of global growth and we will continue to engage with the G20 and the other international forums which will reinforce the ongoing drive to make sure that we learn all the lessons on fiscal and financial stability.
It has been an interesting debate and it is understandable, given the size of the proposed package, that the importance of what we are discussing to Ireland, to our economy and to the wider European context has been fully debated. The financial crisis has shown just how closely linked the economies of Europe and the world have become. In times of prosperity we reap the rewards but in times of hardship, one nation's problems can quickly extend beyond its own borders. That is why we must act now and early to restore stability to Ireland’s economy. That is why we must be prepared and have been prepared to take the necessary steps including through the Bill. It is good for the recovery and good for growth and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Before the noble Lord sits down, there was one other important question that I asked him and I have asked it also in a Question for Written Answer. Have the Government made any estimation of the cost of Ireland going back to the punt, and if not will they do so?
Lord Sassoon
No and no.
Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to seek fully to understand and evaluate the rationale for including the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in Schedule 1 and the reason for its conversion announced on 14 October back to an executive agency of the DWP.
Noble Lords will be aware that CMEC is a relatively new body—a crown non-departmental public body—created by primary legislation in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act just two years ago. It was then the subject of considerable debate. Accepting its demise via the process in this Bill therefore needs considerable justification.
CMEC was charged with completing the operational improvement plan and to carry out a fundamental redesign of the child maintenance system. The operational improvement plan was part of a twin-track approach to radically improve the performance of the Child Support Agency.
The CSA was established in 1993 to assess, collect and enforce child maintenance payments from non-resident parents. It was set up because the system of collecting maintenance through the courts was perceived as failing to establish fair and consistent awards which were not necessarily kept up to date or indeed enforced. Despite the best efforts of CSA staff, the complicated calculation process, IT failures and inadequate enforcement contributed to poor performance and unacceptable outcomes for children.
The CSA struggled to administer the complex rules in the child maintenance system and to handle the difficult and emotional circumstances that often surround parents when child maintenance becomes an issue. It was widely seen as a means of clawing back benefit rather than providing additional resources for children. Reforms in 2000 brought some simplification to the maintenance calculation. The introduction of a child maintenance premium where those in receipt of benefit kept some of the maintenance payments was a positive development. However, the changes still did not deliver the improvements expected. In particular, there were chronic problems with the IT and operational systems, which meant that old scheme cases could not be transferred to the new, simplified system.
Again, the result was that too many children did not receive the benefit of maintenance, which led to the approach of a three-year operational improvement plan, and the call for a longer term redesign of the child maintenance system. The latter was the subject of a report commissioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, when he was Secretary of State at the DWP, from Sir David Henshaw. Sir David argued that the system’s failings reflected both policy and operational problems, and recommended a break with the past to create a new start for child maintenance arrangements. CMEC was to be that new start. It was established with the primary statutory objective of maximising the number of effective maintenance arrangements. This was bolstered by subsidiary objectives of encouraging and supporting voluntary maintenance arrangements and the operation of a statutory scheme.
CMEC is specifically charged with the promotion of raising awareness among parents of the importance of taking responsibility for and making arrangements for child maintenance. It also has a duty to provide information and guidance to parents for the purpose of helping to secure effective maintenance arrangements. Its role is to seek to ensure that all parents who live apart put in place effective arrangements to maintain their children, whether they do this privately, through the courts, or through the statutory service. This is much different from the old CSA, run directly by the DWP, which had only one function—the statutory maintenance service. The enhanced role with a new focus was considered at the time to be best undertaken by a new body, an NDPB, to be led by a commissioner for child maintenance. For certain very practical reasons, the NDPB was set up as a crown body. It was intended to operate at arm’s length from government and through its commissioning powers to be able to develop a high-quality and efficient service. Its board would be focused entirely on delivering a successful child maintenance system, not distracted at the top from the shared responsibilities which the very senior managers would have as an executive agency of the DWP.
The timeline for change was planned to span from the launch of CMEC in October 2008 until 2014, when the new unified child maintenance system is planned to be fully in place. Major steps have already been completed and these include the setting up of the options service, fulfilling the information and guidance obligation for all parents, the removal of the compulsion for parents with care claiming benefits to use the CSA, implementation from April 2010 of a full maintenance disregard, and the deployment of at least some the new debt and enforcement powers. However, CMEC has just completed its first full year of operation, and the forward programme still shows much to do. In fact, 2011 is the year in which the new basis of calculation is due for introduction with a gradual migration of old cases to the new system until in 2014 when there will be a closure of all existing CSA cases and a unified system in place.
CMEC's business plan for 2010-11 is clear that the current year will be a critical year for CMEC as it moves to the launch of the new system. The options service has, seemingly, made a good start. In its evidence to the DWP Select Committee, CMEC set out its focus on promoting the service to new and separating lone parents. It records how Jobcentre Plus and HMRC refer parents to the service when they claim relevant benefits and tax credits.
There can be little doubt that over the period of the operational improvement plan and since, performance of the CSA has improved despite continuing problems with the CS2 system. Currently, its performance under CMEC is the best it has ever been. The number of children benefiting from statutory maintenance has exceeded 850,000, with more than £1.14 million collected. Uncleared applications, a particular bugbear of the past, have declined by over 90 per cent to under 20,000. Telephony has improved out of all recognition. Running costs have reduced from £600 million to under £500 million a year. Nevertheless, the Select Committee report shows that more remains to be done in terms of collection of arrears and maintenance outcomes.
Unlike most of the other bodies included in this schedule, CMEC is not yet in steady state. It is part way through a programme which will finally lead to the clean break recommended by Sir David Henshaw. As the Work and Pensions Select Committee reported, it will be a challenging phase with the continuing problems with the CS2 IT programme, and the operation of three different maintenance systems through to 2014 when it was planned for there to finally be just one simplified statutory system. So in seeking to understand the decision for CMEC to become an agency of the DWP, I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions.
First, what are the type of clear policy and decision-making responsibilities which Ministers consider they are precluded from taking at present in respect of child maintenance, which drives this approach? Secondly, is there any basic change in policy for the child maintenance system? Is it still planned to proceed with the new system, starting at 2011, with the gradual migration of the old and current systems? Is it envisaged that this process will be completed before the operation becomes an executive agency? Thirdly, will the full disregard for benefits remain and will this apply also for the purposes of the universal credit? Fourthly, given that CMEC is currently a crown NDPB, what will its changed status as an agency mean for the staff? Fifthly, given that the decision has already been taken for a transfer to an executive agency, is it considered that being run by DWP will bring operational efficiencies not available to CMEC? If so, what are these, and what evidence base is available to support such a conclusion?
Sixthly, what analysis has been undertaken of the costs involved in any transfer back to the DWP, including novation of supplier contracts, changes to enforcement notifications, et cetera? Are there any VAT ramifications of a transfer, and how does this differ from transfers from non-crown NDPB's? Seventhly, on what grounds is it considered that CMEC fails all the three tests set out by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in October: does it perform a technical function; do its activities require political impartiality; and does it act independently to establish facts? Eighthly, what is the future for the options service under any changed arrangements? Is it not right that considerable effort has gone into branding this service as being at arm’s length from government? What assessment has been undertaken of how parents would react to this becoming an executive agency of the DWP? Would any different requirements apply in respect of information sharing—say, income details of non-resident parents for the DWP, in contrast to CMEC as an NDPB?
Fundamentally, on what basis can we be reassured that the switch to an executive agency will neither disrupt the vital work of getting the new maintenance system up and running as quickly as possible? Moreover, will there continue to be a clear focus on improving child maintenance outcomes as an integral part of the challenge of tackling child poverty?
Our anxiety over this issue has been heightened by the most recent briefing note from the IFS covering child and working age poverty. Clearly, progress in improving child maintenance outcomes should contribute positively to reducing child poverty and any disruption to current arrangements need to be examined from this perspective, especially given the IFS report. This analysis makes grim reading. The conclusion is that the coalition Government’s reforms have no discernable impact on absolute and relative child poverty in 2011-12, but for 2012-13, the IFS estimates that the Government's reforms will increase relative poverty for children by 100,000 and absolute poverty by 200,000. For 2013-14, it is considered that the reforms will increase relative poverty by about 200,000 children and absolute poverty by 300,000 children. So much for the claim that the Government’s reforms will not have a measurable impact on child poverty. They clearly will. What role does the Minister see, therefore, for the child maintenance system in combating child poverty, especially given the shocking figures in the IFS report? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, this seems to be a relatively short debate, which has shown evidence of the great knowledge and experience that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has in this field. There was a debate recently on the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, which informs a lot of his questions and points. However, I have not heard anything in those arguments that undermines the primary objective of the coalition Government to restore ministerial accountability for child maintenance.
The amendment would remove the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission from the list of bodies to which the Public Bodies Bill applies. The Government’s intention is to increase the accountability of Ministers for public services. This amendment would go directly against that intention.
The change of status for CMEC from a non-departmental public body to an executive agency within the DWP is driven by the coalition Government’s desire to have greater accountability for the hugely important issue of child maintenance. We feel that it is important to strengthen ministerial accountability when the Government are considering the role that the child maintenance system can play in their overall commitment to support shared parenting and promote parental responsibility.
We acknowledge that CMEC has built a stable base, following on from the success of the operational improvement plan to which the noble Lord referred. As it currently stands, however, with CMEC operating at arm’s length from the Government, the Government feel that it does not have the right level of responsibility and ministerial accountability. In order to regain that control, this change in status will make that happen. Removing the commission from Schedule 1 to the Bill would adversely impact on that intention.
There is a long and often painful history of poor performance within the child support system, as the noble Lord pointed out. A simple picture could suggest that the Child Support Agency was a failure and that only the introduction of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission turned performance around. I would like to point out that that is not entirely the case. From 2006 to 2009, the Child Support Agency’s operational improvement plan significantly improved the performance of the administration of child maintenance. That was because of the activity taken forward by the Child Support Agency, at that point an agency of the Department for Work and Pensions. Responsibility for child support functions transferred to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in November 2008, near the end of the period covered by the operational improvement plan.
Since its formation in 2008, CMEC has taken these improvements much further. It has also been given a much broader remit than the CSA ever had. Most notably, it has developed a very effective information and support service, Child Maintenance Options, which has received much praise in dealing sensitively with separating and separated parents. Indeed, the noble Lord endorsed it a few minutes ago. The Government want to maintain and build on the progress that CMEC has already delivered. In response to the noble Lord’s question, that is one of the areas where we want to see further progress.
Let me be clear: this is not about scrapping the commission, nor is it about undoing the progress that the commission has made through the hard work and dedication of its people. I can confirm, in answer to the noble Lord’s question in this area, that we are looking to see the progress made and the plans that it has. We are looking closely at our own plans for improving the position in this area.
As the noble Lord said, however, the major reforms that were set out in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 are still to come. The improvements that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has made to date have been despite the inadequacies of its IT infrastructure. The legacy of past problems still casts a long shadow over the administration of the child maintenance system.
The Government believe that it is right—indeed, essential—that Ministers are directly accountable for the significant changes that still need to happen within the child maintenance system, not least the introduction of a new scheme for calculating child maintenance and the associated new IT platform. This Government, in including CMEC in the Bill, are clear that we must avoid reintroducing the well catalogued problems of the past.
To avoid destabilising the organisation at such a critical time, the new executive agency would essentially have the structure and functions of CMEC. The key difference, and the key purpose of this reform, would be the direct accountability and governance lines to Ministers. Many of the questions that the noble Lord raised are answered in that assurance about what will be happening.
I recognise that noble Lords have a keen interest in this matter, given their involvement in the redesign of the child maintenance system in 2006. I am referring, of course, to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Kirkwood, who, alongside the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have proposed the amendment.
The independent review undertaken by Sir David Henshaw made some strong recommendations about the steps required to reform child maintenance. However, the review recognised that the issue of whether or not that should be administered in a body positioned at arm’s length from the Government was a finely balanced debate. The key argument on which the Government rest our position was the need for a clean break, as it was then called—I think that it was referred to today as some other kind of break, but anyway those are the essential grounds on which the argument was made, in response to the well publicised problems that the CSA had been enduring.
I reiterate that this reform is not about dismantling the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in its current form. Neither is it about jeopardising the performance improvements that have been made in recent years. It is fundamentally about restoring ministerial leadership and accountability at a time when child maintenance reforms are reaching a critical stage.
I shall pick up one or two of the questions that I have not already dealt with. The implications for staff are relatively few, given the nature of the transfer. What we are trying to do in the universal credit, in terms of information, may become highly relevant here. We still need to look at that; obviously, it is at a very early stage.
We have looked at costs overall as part of SR10. We are determined that, in undertaking the transfer, we do not divert attention away from the need to get systems up and running. Clearly, this area is vital in tackling child poverty. Family breakdown is one of the main drivers of child poverty. We are determined to move forward on this and maintain targets. As the noble Lord will know, the introduction of the universal credit will have a powerful impact on child poverty. That is not yet included in the IFS calculations, although I imagine that it is working on that. We will be looking closely at other ways of ensuring that we stem the problems arising from family breakdown. Given all this, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. I have no intention of pressing this amendment, as I tabled it in order to seek information. I am comforted by what he said about the progress and planned progress of the child maintenance system and that it is still the objective to try to introduce the new basis of calculation next year and the systems that will support that. I understand that it is intended that all the CSA cases will eventually migrate to the new system by 2014.
However, I am still a little mystified by this issue of ministerial accountability, as there is accountability to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I am a little curious as to what difference the measure would make for Ministers in practice, as for most, if not all, NDPBs there is a way for Ministers to engage and influence. A framework agreement defines not only the financing of NDPBs but their governance arrangements and their relationship with Ministers, so the argument that the Government are switching just to achieve that purpose is a little thin.
I wish to make it clear that I certainly do not contend that improvements came about only once CMEC came into being. Improvements were made under the operational improvement plan before CMEC came into being. I certainly assert—I think that the Minister agreed with this—that CMEC has carried that on and has made continuing progress, although matters still remain to be resolved. I am comforted by the fact that this will not be done in a way that would disrupt the progress that has been made and disrupt the introduction of the new systems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, as he may be drawing his remarks to a close, I wish to ask the Minister a question through him, so to speak. Do I understand that what the Minister is doing is maintaining the policy drive of CMEC while reinventing the structure of the old CSA? As he may know from his briefing, that structure was that there was a chief executive, who reported quarterly or at six-month intervals to the Minister, supported by an advisory board and shadowed, so to speak, by a policy directorate within the department—a grade 5 and above that a grade 3—who would, so to speak, act as the interface between the policy development and the operational work done by the CSA, headed by its chief executive. Is that the proposed structure that the Minister seeks to reinvent or has he a different version in mind? It would be helpful to know how he thinks the organisation will function at the top level and what independent advice—research advice and expertise—he can expect to draw on, which obviously CMEC has taken further and developed in a far more effective way than under the old CSA.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That is probably a belated intervention on the Minister if he wishes to answer it. One of my questions concerned what would happen to the board and whether and how it would be reconstituted.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, specifically on that question on the board, if the Minister is minded to comment further, it would be interesting to know, if the board is to continue, what sort of remuneration it would have for what purpose, if the Minister is now to be much more accountable and have that proper oversight.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Minister wants to pick up those points now, perhaps I can come back to my points later.
Lord Freud
We want to move to the new arrangements as soon as we can. The details of the arrangements for the agency will be elaborated on, but our intention is basically to leave the CMEC structure unaffected. The accountability point is much more political. I imagine that it would delight any Opposition, and slightly worry any Minister, to be directly responsible for what this very important agency does. That is the key difference. There is direct accountability for what is happening across these Dispatch Boxes and, of course, those in another place. We think that that is right, given the very many millions of parents and children affected. The figure is not quite 10 million on my count but it is getting on for that. For that reason, it is vital that there is direct political responsibility.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I wonder if I might assist the Committee. We are in Committee and we try to enable as much discussion and latitude as possible. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, may not be aware that the procedure is that, once the Minister has concluded his answer, and then the person moving the amendment seeks to sum up and decide what to do with the amendment, the Minister should not then be subject to further questioning. Naturally, the Minister has wanted to assist the Committee as much as possible but the noble Lord has trespassed a little far on our usual procedures. I invite the Minister not to comment further. However, I am sure that, like all Ministers—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, used to do when she was a Minister—he will be pleased to consider constructive discussions between now and Report.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for participating in the additional exchanges. However, we still need clarity over what the structure will look like in the future and what in practice enhanced ministerial responsibility and accountability will come from that. Having heard the Minister’s comments, I cannot see a great difference from current practice.
I return to the options service, which was not a responsibility of the DWP or the CSA before the creation of the commission. It has been heavily, and properly, marketed as offering support for parents and information and guidance that is independent of government. I have not heard the Minister address my next point directly, but it seems to me that we need to think through the consequences of putting at risk the status that that service has achieved, where parents with care and non-resident parents can feel that they can genuinely and confidentially engage with the service and get impartial advice. I remember that during the passage of the Bill we had interesting discussions about the obligations on that service in terms of reporting its findings if it became aware of information that was inconsistent with other information in the system on benefits and income. One of my questions is whether that will change with the service no longer being conducted by an NDPB but directly by an executive agency of the DWP. It would be good to have clarity on those sorts of issues.
We have probably had a useful starting exchange on this. We would now like to read the record and reflect. If there is an opportunity, perhaps we can get some clarity on these issues even before we reach Report stage. My colleagues and I would greatly appreciate that. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)
We come to Amendment 28. I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I expected that we were breaking for dinner. Do we not break for dinner in Committee?
Lord Greaves
No? I thought that we were. All right. It is a good job I did not go and have my dinner, isn’t it?
Amendment 28
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
This amendment would leave out the Commission for Rural Communities from the list of organisations in Schedule 1. This amendment, like the previous one, is a probing amendment to ask questions of the Government and, one hopes, to get the Government to set out clearly on the record how they see the CRC’s functions being carried out in future, which of those functions will be carried out in future, and which are to be abandoned.
The Commission for Rural Communities was created by Section 17 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—which many noble Lords, and perhaps refugees from the House of Commons as well, will remember took up a considerable amount of discussion at the time. The Commission for Rural Communities, which was created by primary legislation, was therefore thoroughly discussed and thrashed out in your Lordships' House.
The Commission for Rural Communities sets out its purpose and functions as follows. It is a statutory body,
“funded by government to help ensure that policies, programmes and decisions take proper account of the circumstances of rural communities. We have a particular focus on disadvantaged people and areas suffering from economic under-performance”.
In essence, it has,
“three key functions: Advocate: acting as a voice for rural people, businesses and communities; Expert adviser: giving evidence-based, objective advice to government and others; and Independent watchdog: monitoring and reporting on the delivery of policies nationally, regionally and locally”.
That is a summary of what it does.
The commission's work since it was set up has been widely praised. Much of it consists of research, and the work of the chairman, Dr Stuart Burgess, as advocate for rural areas—particularly disadvantaged rural areas—has been notable. On 29 June 2010, Caroline Spelman, the Secretary of State, announced that the CRC will be abolished and partly replaced with a strengthened rural communities policy unit within Defra.
This amendment, like the previous one, goes to the heart of the way in which the new Government intend to carry out many of the functions that are currently carried out by autonomous bodies. In her statement on 29 June, Caroline Spelman said:
“With an urgent need to drive down debt and reduce Government spending we will have to make some tough decisions”.
Secondly, she said:
“We are committed to improving the quality of life for those living in rural areas and we will put the fair treatment of rural communities at the centre of Government”.
Thirdly, she said:
“Focusing rural policy making within the department will give rural communities and interest groups a direct link to central policymakers and a stronger champion for rural issues at the heart of Government”.
I think that that is what, a few years ago, used to be called rural proofing—the attempt to make sure that government policies across the patch were all checked for their effect in rural areas.
So there are really two main reasons for this policy, and they are both clearly set out in the statement—the first is to save money, and the other is to have a more effective service. The underlying promise is that it will not prejudice government actions for rural areas. Those are the issues that we need to probe, and the first is cost.
There are some questions that I should like to ask the Minister. What is the transitional cost? The Government briefing suggests that it is £2.5 million. Can he tell us what makes up that figure? What is the extra cost of taking on this work within Defra, and therefore what is the net saving? The suggestion, again from the government briefing, is that the existing cost of the CRC is £5.8 million;, that there will be a saving of £4.5 million once the transitional costs have been paid; and that the spend within Defra will therefore be only £1.3 million compared with £5.8 million at the moment. I can believe that efficiencies might be gained by doing this within Defra, and that it might be possible to do it more cheaply; but, nevertheless, that difference is so great—£5.8 million to £1.3 million—that one has to ask what things are being done at the moment that will not be done in the future.
Can the Minister tell us something about the transitional period? My understanding is that the intention is that the CRC should cease on 31 March 2011, but there may be transitional things to be done after that. How will that be managed?
How many staff does the CRC have at the moment? How many have transferred into Defra, and are any more expected to do so? What will be the size of the new unit within Defra which will carry out the work that the CRC has been carrying out?
The second broad area of questions has to be about the effectiveness of the new system. The proposal is to strengthen the rural team in Defra, to improve existing policy work, and to carry out the following functions. The first is to support Ministers, who will have much more direct accountability in future for the rural work. The second is to act as a centre of rural expertise. The third is to champion,
“rural needs and issues across government departments and other bodies”;
and the fourth is to work,
“with the civic sector to promote rural solutions at the local level”.
The last one is a quote and I do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Minister can tell me.
The Secretary of State also said:
“Ministers will lead rural policy from within my Department … The Government believe policy advice should be carried out by Departments, not arm's-length bodies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/10; col. 36WS.]
That is okay as far as it goes, but there are questions to be asked. The Campaign to Protect Rural England suggests that the advice to Ministers should be,
“robust, independent and evidence-based policy advocacy”.
That is what the CRC has been doing. For example, its report on uplands, published in June, called High Ground, High Potential—A Future for England’s Upland Communities, was a model of its kind. It was well researched, evidence-based and put forward a series of proposals on behalf of the rural areas of England that are most disadvantaged. It is difficult to see how a unit within Defra could do that with the style and commitment that was evident in that report.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I was very pleased to put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he is scrutinising this Bill, and in particular the arm's-length bodies in the Defra family, as we lovingly call it. My interest in this is as the midwife of the Commission for Rural Communities. I was the Rural Affairs Minister responsible for the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, and for the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities in 2005.
For noble Lords who are not familiar with the subject, I will give a potted history. In 1999, the Countryside Agency was established out of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission. It was ably headed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who also served as the rural advocate. Just prior to my taking over from Alun Michael as Rural Affairs Minister, Stuart Burgess was asked to take over the rural advocate’s responsibilities. At the same time, the recommendations of the review carried out in 2003 by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, were being implemented through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill that I was pleased to steward through Parliament. The Bill took English Nature, a rural development service within Defra and the Countryside Agency, and created from those three bodies Natural England. A small element around rural advocacy was retained as the Commission for Rural Communities.
After some searching around the real estate of government, it found a home in Cheltenham, which was where the Countryside Agency had been. On the longest day of 2005—23 June—we debated at length in Committee primary legislation that would create the Commission for Rural Communities. It is ironic that five years later, on the shortest day of the year, we are now debating its demise. Currently it has just over 60 staff based in Cheltenham, and a budget just shy of £6 million. As we have heard, its closure was announced in June. Looking through the local press cuttings, it is notable that the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, Martin Horwood, said back in June:
“There hasn’t been any obvious consultation and I think it leaves questions unanswered about how important independent roles are going to be fulfilled”.
I think that the Liberal Democrat Member for Cheltenham puts his finger on the need for independent advocacy and independent rural-proofing, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, echoes his questions about how those functions will now be performed if the Commission for Rural Communities is allowed to go.
When I was thinking about this debate today, I also noticed a fine article in the Daily Telegraph—not a paper that I normally peruse with great interest—of 2 July this year by Geoffrey Lean, who is easily the longest-serving environment correspondent writing in any of our national newspapers. He has been following these issues for a considerable number of years. I think it is worth quoting some of the things that he said in that article. I know that it may not be the most popular newspaper today among the government Front Benches but in an article headed “The countryside will be the poorer” Geoffrey Lean says:
“Think about poverty in Britain, and the mind jumps to grim inner-city estates. But deprivation can be just as great amid some of the loveliest landscapes. About one in five rural families live beneath the poverty line, a rate increasing three times as fast as in the cities”.
He goes on:
“The commission’s job was to tackle this. It could, perhaps, have done so more dynamically—and it could have sold itself better—but it did make a difference ... It produced regular State of the Countryside reports—the last, as it happens, comes out next week”—
this was written in July—
“keeping a focus on rural poverty. And it persuaded the last government to stump up £180 million to maintain village post offices and enable them to provide banking services, and to propose a 50p tax on all phone bills to finance rural broadband. Now, a coalition of two parties that traditionally represented the countryside is betraying it. First to go was the broadband tax, scrapped in George Osborne’s Budget. And now Ms Spelman has killed off the commission”.
He finishes:
“This will save money—but not a great deal. The £3.5 million a year won’t help much towards the £750 million reduction in the department’s budget demanded by the Chancellor, and seems outweighed by the cost to the countryside … So who will speak for the countryside? The Conservative and Lib Dem backbenches, perhaps? But many of the Tory knights of the shire have retired behind their moats, leaving the party more Bullingdon than bucolic, while their coalition partners seem cowed by power. The NFU, and the Country Land and Business Association, are effective, but represent sectional interests as, in a different way, does the Countryside Alliance. And the much diminished Campaign to Protect Rural England has disbanded its rural policy team”.
Finally, there is a quotation in the article from Tim Farron:
“’The role of somebody outside government to look at rural policy and decisions taken by all departments is very, very important’”.
I could not say that better. I apologise for reading to your Lordships from the Daily Telegraph at such length but I think that Geoffrey Lean makes a really good argument.
It is true that at times the Commission for Rural Communities has not pulled its punches—sometimes, I am afraid, at the expense of the Government of whom I was proud to be a member until May of this year. I found a cutting from the Times—this must have been before the paywall was invented because it is dated 6 June 2008—on the report by Stuart Burgess as the rural advocate. The report states bluntly:
“Rural issues are given little recognition in keynote speeches, only passing reference in policy papers, and rare places on platforms of major economic and regeneration conferences. Urban-based officials and organisations are rarely challenged to upgrade their understanding and commitment to the substantial rural part of the national economy”.
Stuart Burgess and his lean team of staff based in Cheltenham did an admirable job in holding us to account. It is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Hill, in his place as a schools Minister. Stuart would regularly come to see me, encouraging me to ensure that the rural schools group established by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, was allowed to continue and to ensure that I attended it and listened to what it had to say. He was also keen to ensure that we properly rural-proofed what we were doing in education, that the presumption in favour of keeping rural schools would be retained, and that things such as the academic broadband network that schools are able to take advantage of could be piggy-backed to help to tackle the rural broadband issues that the Commission for Rural Communities was so keen to advocate.
I have a document from the commission dated 11 May 2010 which lists some of the successes of 2009-10 alone. They relate to areas such as affordable rural housing, fuel poverty, climate change, transport, digital communications, health, post offices, financial inclusion and market towns. There is a whole list of areas where the commission has been active, has been reporting and has been challenging the Government to do their job. That should be allowed to continue. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will be assertive and perhaps even put it to a vote and challenge the government on this, if not now, then at some future point. This is a commission that the Government can and should be proud of and should allow to continue.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I shall join in briefly, even though I am far from being an expert on this commission like my noble friend Lord Greaves and, from what he has just said, the noble Lord, Lord Knight. What I do have is some 18 years’ ministerial experience, man and boy, continuously from 1979 to 1997, at every level of government, including several years as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, before becoming what was, in terms of nomenclature, rather more grand. In that, I share some experience with my noble friend on the Front Bench: we overlapped each other at the old DHSS, or was it by then the DSS? It might have had yet another title: they change more or less every week. I want to contribute a priori from that, picking up a couple of the points that have been made.
First, I just do not understand the general arguments that are being put forward for the proposition in the real world, as distinct from some hypothetical world. It is said that there should be greater direct accountability by Ministers within the department and that the department should be the champion. We all know that if the Ministry of Justice decides to abolish magistrates’ courts, another department cannot act as the champion for anything. We all know that what happens is that, by and large, these matters are settled at meetings of relatively junior Ministers, where you may or may not carry the day, but you cannot then go round outside that Cabinet committee saying, “I championed this but the rest would not agree”. You cannot say, “We lost on this, but we will now campaign to have it reversed or to make people think again”.
Equally, when I was such a junior Minister faced with those difficulties, I welcomed having an authoritative external body to which I could point as a support for what I wanted to get my colleagues to agree to. Far more convincing than saying, “My unit in the department tells me that this is what we want”, is to say, “We have this great and good body of external people who really know what they are talking about and who have done some research, and this is what they are advocating”. Some of this thinking does not connect with the real world. I would be most grateful if my noble friend would comment, if he feels able. The only other thing that I would say is that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will not press his amendment, because I think we could have a much more productive argument when Ministers have had a chance to think about just what it is that they want to do.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because I want to pick up some of the themes which he touched on which I thought were worthy of further reflection. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing the debate and for the manner in which he did so. It was very reasoned, trying to tease out answers. Indeed, he has probably posed most of the questions which I would pose.
I also want to take this opportunity to add my tribute to Stuart Burgess. I worked with him very closely in the days when I was chair of the Forestry Commission. We met regularly, and I found him a tower of strength. He was a most admirable individual, a very knowledgeable man and, above all, a real champion for the countryside—not for any particular vested interest in the countryside but for the people in the countryside, especially the disadvantaged. It is interesting that the report which is imminent, probably the last report from the commission, will be on that issue.
I am a little surprised that the coalition is proposing that action. I read the local papers, as does the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We probably read the same local papers, after we have read the back page, where we share a common interest. I am always finding the coalition partners, whether it is in Penrith and the Border, Westmorland, or wherever, appearing to champion the rural areas and saying that the Labour politicians from the west of the county—although they represent huge rural areas—have no concern for the rural areas. That could not be further wrong.
Indeed, as we have heard, it was the Labour Government who established the Commission for Rural Communities, which I believe did a great deal of good work. The great advantage was that I frequently met Stuart Burgess on the train going on a fact-finding visit, or going to hold a public meeting, a public consultation, in some village hall on housing, broadband, or whatever. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as a Minister I certainly found it incredibly valuable to be able to call in experts, especially people who were as independent as the chair of the Commission for Rural Communities. It was very useful for a politician to be able to call these people in aid because one of the things I found was that—this is just a fact of life in a sense—any politician has a certain struggle, not only with his opponents across the Chamber but, inevitably, with his own department. His own civil servants may have slightly different interests in certain respects than he may have. Indeed, they may be right, because they are there for the long term and most politicians are there for the shorter term.
What I found interesting, and the issue that I would pose to the Minister, is this. I cannot imagine civil servants in a unit in Defra going out into rural communities on winter or even summer evenings, going to village halls, meeting ordinary people and listening to them, bearing in mind that, because of the nature of the occupation, the overwhelming majority of those civil servants, most of the policy people and the people with the real authority are based here in south-east England in the Greater London area. I simply do not believe that they will be going out and collecting the information for themselves. I believe that if the Government really want the big society notion to work, they are really going to have to engage with people and to communicate with them. Quite honestly, I believe that members of a commission are much better at doing that than civil servants in Defra or in any other department.
That brings me to the second point that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made. It is a killing point. It is about who is the lead authority. Let us take broadband, which has been mentioned several times. Broadband in rural areas is difficult, but it can be piggybacked on the school network. In Cumbria, the Member for Penrith and The Border has led a campaign in the north of the county to try to get broadband, quite rightly, into these rural communities. Defra will actually have very little authority when the execution of this plan comes to the fore because, quite frankly, it is not Defra’s responsibility. It is another government department’s responsibility. We heard about the power of the Under-Secretary of State, but it is more than that, it is the power of the civil servants, with their pecking orders, as well. I believe that rural communities will lose out by this abolition.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Knight who made the point about listening. I hope that the Government will listen especially to people such as Geoffrey Lean, who for many years has been the finest environmental journalist in this country and for the past 40 years has been prepared to take unpopular stances against Governments of all political hues. I thought the quote that my noble friend used was most telling, and I hope the Minister will not dismiss this and will listen to some of these points of view.
Lord Grantchester
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the excellent way that he has put forward his amendment tonight. I thank my noble friend for his parental advocacy of this body. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken with great passion on this amendment, which goes to the heart of this Government’s attitude to rural livelihoods and rural communities.
The Commission for Rural Communities was set up to promote awareness of the social and economic needs of people who live and work in rural areas, and to help decision makers across and beyond government to identify how these needs can best be addressed. It has given valuable independent advice to the Government and has produced a number of excellent reports, many of which have been referred to approvingly in recent rural affairs debates in your Lordships’ House.
The arguments about the usefulness of outside, independent and impartial advice, rather than simply relying on departmental in-house sources of advice from civil servants, have been well aired in relation to a variety of bodies proposed to be scrapped in the Public Bodies Bill. In particular, the debate on the pesticides advisory committees and the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lady Quin, and others on 29 November, were very pertinent. The value of the report of the Commission for Rural Communities was mentioned in a debate on rural affairs initiated once again by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on 15 July. That then informed your Lordships’ later debate on the Prince’s Countryside Fund.
The CRC focuses on practical outcomes for people who live and work in our rural areas. I pay tribute to Stuart Burgess who with his team accompanied a tour on the work being done in market towns, which was a strong initiative in my local area in Cheshire. The second round of the town centre initiative fund expanded excellent help towards 15 further rural local authorities; that is, 38 per cent of recipient authorities compared to only 6 per cent in the first round of that initiative. It has been involved in collaboration and partnerships through local areas, and in working to find the most effective solutions at the least cost. It has picked up on local challenges and strengths, and has been part of local economic assessments, which have been vital to the work of regional development agencies and, through the rural development of England proposals, has worked with the development agencies, which is another body we will look at after the new year. It has become a repository of expert advice and opinion to take advice of rural needs to the heart of government.
It is clear that there has been no real consultation about the abolition of this commission, despite the assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, about consultations in an earlier debate. In answer to a Written Question, HL2837, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
“The decision to abolish the Commission for Rural Communities was made after full consideration within Defra and the usual consultation across government”.—[Official Report, 25/10/10; col. WA 224.]
No wider consultations have been undertaken.
Has the effect on rural areas really been considered? The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to costs and rightly pointed out that the upfront abolition costs are in the region of £2.5 million. Unlike many of the other Defra bodies where cost savings are negligible or non-existent, this could be one where some costs may be at issue. However, one has to look at the value for money that this expenditure has produced. If the Government commission reports in the future on the kinds of subjects that have previously been considered by the CRC, there would presumably be considerable costs in undertaking them. Furthermore, independent, impartial advice is a valuable commodity.
The Defra Minister, Richard Benyon, has also said that proposed changes to Defra’s public bodies will create modest savings. The main benefits of the proposals in the Public Bodies Bill are to increase transparency and accountability in public bodies. But how can accountability be improved if existing bodies, such as those we are discussing tonight, which publish their reports and proceedings and have excellent websites, high visibility in rural areas, and make minutes of their meetings available to everyone, are abolished and replaced by Defra in-house bodies? The CRC made a difference. This simply does not make sense.
I turn now to the announcement made on 29 June by the Secretary of State. A new policy unit is to be set up within her department covering rural communities. It will work across government to ensure that rural interests are reflected in programmes. I join other noble Lords who have asked the Minister how an internal policy unit can have the profile to cut across and into other departmental activities. Can these new arrangements be effective? What evidence will he require of his department to support the Government’s contention that the work done so admirably by the Commission for Rural Communities will still be carried out as effectively in the future?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I shall now address the amendment and put things into an appropriate perspective. I welcome the remarks of all noble Lords who have spoken about the CRC. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, described himself as the midwife of the body, but he was then described as its father by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We are getting our metaphors a bit mixed up on this occasion. However, as I said, I want to put this into perspective, so I shall start by reminding the Committee, as other noble Lords have done, that we announced our intention way back on 29 June that, subject to the passing of legislation, we would abolish the Commission for Rural Communities along with its statutory functions as just one part of the Bill before us.
I think I can speak for all my fellow Ministers and future Ministers once my time is up when I say that the decision to abolish the commission does not reflect in any way a reduction in the Government’s rural commitment. On the contrary, the Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas and intend to put the fair treatment of rural communities at the centre of government. There are already many rural organisations and commentators who will continue to hold the Government to account, as happened with the previous Government. I think that noble Lords might remember one faintly rural community, the Women’s Institute, which I seem to remember a former Prime Minister going to address but not coming away from that occasion exactly unbloodied. However, I think he enjoyed the experience.
I remind the Committee of what the name Defra stands for. It is the department responsible for the environment, food and rural affairs. It is the department that works to promote the interests of rural people within all government policies. I can speak for all my colleagues in the department—I am sure it will be true of all future Ministers and, dare I say it, those like the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Clark, who have served in similar departments in previous Governments—by saying that we will continue to push for rural affairs. Many of us have a strong rural background. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, comes from my part of the world and I was grateful for his reference to the fact that we support the same football team and read the same newspaper. We will continue, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and others have done, to champion rural issues across the Government.
I must make it clear that we as a department will continue to work with a vast range of departments on issues of importance to rural people. This will include working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on broadband. It is an important issue and I am glad that noble Lords mentioned it. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to what my honourable friend in another place is doing in Penrith and the border region for north Cumberland in trying to bring the project forward. He has had long discussions with both the DCMS and my colleague, Richard Benyon, who has responsibility for these matters in Defra on that issue. We will continue to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government on housing and planning and with the Department for Transport on rural transport issues.
My noble friend Lord Newton kept emphasising that he was a junior Minister, but he was actually the first Secretary of State I served under in the Department of Social Security, and I hope that I learnt a great deal from him in doing so.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I am tempted to intervene. I am grateful to my noble friend because I now remember. He was War Pensions Minister, if I remember rightly, and I am willing to bet that he found the external campaigning of what was then called COBSEO—it may be called something else now—very useful in trying to get money out of me for war pensions.
Lord Henley
My noble friend touches a sore point: I remember many issues relating to war pensions and other matters that caused him and me a great many problems. I can also remember taking social security Bills through this House for my noble friend when he was the Secretary of State and that I suffered a number of defeats which ran into millions, billions and trillions of pounds and which my noble friend then had to overturn. The point I am trying to make is that what this House and another place can do is equally important. I always used to feel that any Secretary of State from another place with whom I worked needed two or three defeats in this House before they understood its importance. My noble friend learned that and we dealt with the problems.
We talk to a large number of different departments; we will continue to do so and we will continue to be the rural advocate. As part of our changes to rural policy, Defra’s rural capacity will be significantly increased to create a new rural communities policy unit. That unit will expand on the existing policy work of the department, moving to a single organisation to act as the rural champion within government—and that rural champion is Defra. This will remove duplication, improve efficiency and improve our focus on priority issues for rural communities.
In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Greaves asked about staffing issues and the transitional period. This is very important. I can assure my noble friend that 14 staff from the CRC have already transferred to Defra as they are connected to work which will be undertaken in the rural communities policy unit. This will assist in building upon the relationships that the commission has built up. In addition, any vacant posts in the new unit—and we expect there to be at least some—will be advertised so that commission staff without an automatic right of transfer can apply for those positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about the RDPE and whether the CRC was responsible for that network. That function has been transferred to Defra and the three CRC staff undertaking the work have been transferred; they are among the 14. I must make it clear to the noble Lord that the CRC was not responsible for the full RDPE programme, which is a wider matter.
One of the most important issues to address is costs. What we are doing is not only about saving money, but we expect significant savings to come from this action. This is important in terms of our contribution to reducing the deficit. We, as a Government, inherited a very large deficit from the party opposite when they were in government and we all have to do our bit to reduce it. Obviously there will be up-front costs as a result of the change and redundancies, and those are estimated at less than £2.5 million. These will be far outweighed by the long-term savings, estimated to be in the region of £4.5 million a year. That is a significant sum. There are very good reasons for wanting to continue to attack the deficit and we will continue to do so. However, as I have made clear to the Committee, that is not the sole reason for our doing this.
Lord Henley
I will give way to the noble Lord when I have finished that sentence. It is my right to decide when I give way. I pay tribute to the work of the Commission for Rural Communities during the past four years, but I think that its time has come.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Will the noble Lord also pay tribute to the work of the rural advocate and address the points made by all speakers in this debate about the importance of having a voice for rural England that is independent of government? Does he think that that role should continue, even if the other functions can be absorbed within his rural policy unit?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord looks for an independent rural advocate. I do not think that we will be short of any number of independent rural advocates or that they necessarily need to be government funded. He referred in terms of environmental matters to Geoffrey Lean. There are many others who will offer us advice and make their views known, as will the noble Lord himself, this House and another place. I can assure the noble Lord that we will not be short of advice. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
While I recognise the strength of what my noble friend said about the department’s commitment, is not the problem that the department is only part of government and that there can be much stronger departments—for example, the Treasury and the department for business? We have witnessed the National Grid announce a consultation on covering large parts of rural England with pylons from the North Sea. When that issue comes to be debated within government, we will hear the voices of the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but those debates will be internal. Would it not enormously strengthen my noble friend’s department to have an authoritative voice—not just local women’s institutes—from an objective body set up for the purpose of giving a view which is clearly not parti pris but is committed to the benefit of the rural areas of this country?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I appreciate that some departments are more equal than others. One of the first things that I learnt sitting at the feet of my noble friend Lord Newton was that the Treasury had a slightly greater say on these matters than other departments. Nevertheless, Defra will play its role in arguing these views in government. I do not think that the CRC would be able to stand up to the Treasury with any greater authority than, for example, my own department, but, as I said in response to earlier remarks, there are a great many other bodies outside that will also make the case for rural communities very strongly. I do not think that spending £4.5 million per year on the CRC is certain to give more prominence to the arguments of rural communities. We will do that, and do it far more cheaply than the CRC.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, before I respond to what the Minister said, I would like to thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was representing the Labour Front Bench because at least somebody apart from me was not a past or present Minister. At one stage, the debate was developing into a past and present Ministers’ club, with lots of gossip that the rest of us did not quite understand. However, I am grateful to everybody and particularly the former Ministers—midwives and everybody else—who have taken part.
I am not one of those who think that Ministers, even at a junior level, do not have any influence and cannot, with enough energy and commitment, achieve things within their departments and perhaps outside. I spent last Christmas reading Chris Mullin's diaries about his time as various kinds of junior Minister, which give a very cynical view of the person with a minor position and no power whatever. I suspect that he laid it on a little. The diaries are extremely amusing, but I think that he probably overstresses his lack of power and influence.
Having looked at it all from the outside over many years, I have seen that Ministers with energy can achieve things, but one problem that faces all Governments and all ministerial teams is that at some stage they run out of energy and new inspiration. I would not accuse the present Government of having a lack of energy or a lack of determination to do things. In fact, I think that they sometimes rush into things far too quickly, when a little more thought and careful consideration might be helpful, although I understand why they do so. However, such energy does not last. The idea that a Minister at a middle or junior level within Defra will have the presence and ability to promote causes on behalf of rural areas, particularly disadvantaged rural areas, that the CRC and its chairman have at the moment is arguable at the very least and possibly wishful thinking.
I understand that the Government have an agenda, which I share to quite a considerable degree, of looking hard at quangos, reducing their costs and doing away with them when they are not doing a useful job or where what they do can be done more efficiently or democratically. I do not disagree with that fundamental wish in any way whatever, but the quangos have to be looked at one by one.
One specific question that I asked, to which I did not get an answer, was whether the State of the countryside report, as a basic piece of essential impartial, independent research, will continue in future even if within Defra. I hope that the Minister might write to us with an answer to that.
I would also like much more information on exactly how the rural champion across government will work. One of the things that a lot of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches have learnt in the past few months is how busy Ministers are and how much of their time is taken up with activities, some of which are clearly extremely vital and some of which I wonder why they are bothering with. I wonder why they do not just say no and get on with doing something useful. It is absolutely clear that competent, keen Ministers have their time and energies fully occupied by the job that they do. Some will cynically say that such Ministers are just being run by civil servants, but I do not think that that is true of good Ministers. Nevertheless, Ministers are very busy people. To have the job of co-ordinating rural policies across government is a pretty big job. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, can tell us how he got on trying to do that kind of thing when he was recently a rural Minister.
The other fundamental question to which I do not think that I have an answer is this: what does the CRC do at present that will not be done in future? The noble Lord, Lord Knight, set out clearly what the CRC does now. What we would like to know is which of those tasks will not be done in future, by Defra or by anybody else. If £4.5 million is to be saved—as the Minister quite rightly said, that is not a small sum, even in these days—what jobs are not going to be done because that money is not being spent? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, “I think that its time has come”. It is probably inevitable that its time has come, no matter how much we debate it in Committee and at later stages, but it is important that we understand who is going to do what in future. I do not think that we understand that yet.
Some of the quangos—the arm’s-length bodies, or whatever they are called—that are being done away with in the long lists in this Bill will not be missed in future. In five or 10 years’ time, we will look back at the list and ask ourselves, “What an earth were they? What did they do?”. Such quangos will not be missed and we will wonder why we argued about them, but some of the quangos will be missed, including, I suspect, the CRC. Life goes round in circles, as we know, and some of those quangos will have to be reinvented in future. It is far better either that we get it right now and do not drive the bulldozer through those that are necessary or, if the organisational arrangements are to change, that we understand at least that robust structures will be set up that will deliver the same kind of thing.
Finally, the Minister said that he did not believe that the CRC could stand up to the Treasury better than a rural advocate within Defra. That may be true in some respects, but the real difference is that the rural advocate within Defra will operate within government and behind the closed doors of government. Some of what he is doing will come out, because we will have debates in Parliament, reports will be produced and leaks will appear in newspapers. By and large, however, that process will take place within government, whereas what the CRC and other similar bodies can do is to take it all out into the public domain so that the research is published. The proposals are public proposals and, as Members of Parliament and your Lordships' House, we can use that information to call Ministers to account, to take part in debates and to take part in legislation. It is much more difficult to prise information from within the department. That is a fundamental difference, which the Government have not got quite right in a number of these issues.
It is customary on these occasions to ask the Minister to write to us and to give us answers to the questions that have been asked that have not been answered. I hope that he will do that after this debate. I will certainly collate the questions that have been asked from all parts of the House, write them down and hope to get more thorough answers from the Government and from the civil servants in Defra and everybody else involved before we come back to Report. We may have to come back to this issue on Report, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
I shall speak also to Amendments 35, 36, 38 and 48, which are grouped with this one. Amendment 29 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who apologises to the House that she cannot be present today. I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire and I apologise to the House for it having slipped my mind to mention this interest on the previous amendment.
The public bodies within the government department of Defra are what we are discussing today. Some, as the previous amendment showed, go to the heart of the Government’s strategic vision for the countryside. I concur that we may well need to look at those issues later as this legislation goes through the House.
One could probably describe the bodies that I shall refer to in relation to this batch of amendments as not of strategic importance; this is more of a tidying-up exercise. Nevertheless, it is important to bring them to the attention of the House and to ask the Minister to try to clarify what he thinks will be the work of the department, how it will be structured and how the activities undertaken by these bodies will be done within the Government, either by independent experts or within his own department as advisory committees.
Amendment 29 concerns the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. As the Minister said, it is recognised on all sides of the House that the deficit that has been created is consequential on the banking situation, and all sides of the House have proposals to tackle the deficit. We on this side were looking at that committee as a key one to tidy up and abolish in this period. It has not sat for over 10 years and, when it did so, it was largely made up of members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, which has been instrumental in providing advice to Defra and indeed does so now as part of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which has been carrying on the work of that committee to great advantage. I understand that the group is looking at draft replacement statutory instruments to be brought in on the end of tenancy valuations, concerning such erudite matters as residual manurial values—before all eyes mist over in a glaze of appreciation—and the volatility of fertiliser prices that make this job so important to the nation.
Amendment 35 is on environment protection advisory committees. On these, we understand that the aim is to establish more flexible non-statutory engagement arrangements at a more local level. The Environment Agency must be able to engage more actively locally with society, the public and business. Effective stakeholder engagement and partnerships are key to successful delivery on the ground. With these amendments, we are seeking to engage the Minister to clarify the successor arrangements that will be put in place. We understand and agree that the design of the detail of this new approach is an important next step. The Environment Agency will be working closely with the chairs and members of the current committees to develop thinking on how best to maximise future local community engagement and to ensure smooth transition with partnerships and local stakeholders. Can the Minister tell us what stage these discussions have reached and clarify that, as this Bill passes through its stages in this House and is enacted, these new arrangements will be programmed to come into being in parallel with these committees being wound up?
Amendment 36 concerns Food from Britain and is a tidying-up exercise, as the body has already been administratively wound down. However, once again, it would be instrumental and helpful to be told what headway the successor arrangements are making with the activity that was carried out by Food from Britain. Looking to my interests in the farming industry, I know that that body has been very important in the past in promoting food from Britain both within this country and overseas. It would be helpful to understand how the successor bodies are being taken forward.
Amendment 48 concerns regional and local fisheries advisory committees. Will the Minister advise the House on the successor arrangements in that regard? I beg to move.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 38, which concerns the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. I do so in the same spirit as my noble friend on the Front Bench in that I seek to ascertain whether the Government have the right processes in place to take over any jobs that this body may have undertaken. It would be foolish of me to oppose the abolition of this committee, as we stopped it meeting under my watch as chair of the Forestry Commission. I remember it well because we reviewed all our advisory committees and considered that there was no real justification for the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. According to the Minister’s Answer to a Parliamentary Question, it has not met since September 2005 and fell into abeyance in June 2006 when the members’ terms of office expired. In the second part of the Parliamentary Question, I asked what the cost of the body was. The Minister replied that it had cost £625 since November 2005, which is about £125 a year. I suspect that it does not cost that much and that most of that money was incurred in winding up the body in the latter part of 2005 and in 2006, so in essence it is a no-cost body. That is an important point.
I spent this afternoon looking at the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill on 5 August 1919—I was able to do so in view of the delays incurred when another matter was being discussed in the House—which set up the Forestry Commission. It is interesting how much wise debate took place when the Forestry Commission was being established. One thing that was debated at great length was whether Scotland should have its own, separate Forestry Commission. That has not changed. Almost 80 years later devolution took place to a certain extent and great powers were given back to Scotland and to Wales, as well as to England, to run their part of the forestry estate. Flexibility was also built into that legislation, which was then carried forward into the subsequent Acts affecting forestry. There was no Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee; it was simply a central advisory committee. I have never been quite sure why the Government are so intent on abolishing it.
I come back to my other point about the big society, which seems to be the Government’s underlying philosophy. This committee was a radical proposal for the time, in 1919. A very radical and progressive Liberal Prime Minister, Lloyd George, was trying—
Lord Clark of Windermere
Perhaps the coalitions in those days were a bit more radical than the current one. But we will let that lie.
That advisory committee was a link in the new concept of state forestry—forestry belonging to the citizens—being challenged by and running side by side with the private forest interest. The Act said that between six and eight members of the advisory committee would be appointed after consultations with forest owners—who I suggest were not exactly supporters of the Labour Party or the Opposition—and that six to eight would come from the timber merchants and allied trades. It was a genuine attempt to try to draw in expertise and to be aware of the interests not so much of those who were involved in state forestry but of those who had great knowledge of the industry. It certainly served the state forest service very well, helped to build up the Forestry Commission and also helped private forestry. That is one reason why, even today, a large body in private forestry wishes to retain the state forest service. However, we will come back to that in later amendments.
I am simply suggesting that this is perhaps a little more than tokenism. Perhaps it is just tidying up—I concede that straight away—but if the committee does not cost anything, why abolish it? Interestingly, the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee was not set up until 1939, when there was the threat of war and the need for timber. It was established to try to ensure that that need was met. It resonates today that the first edict that it set out, facing the demands of war—it sounds obvious now—was that one should go first for the mature timber, then for the semi-mature timber, and, lastly, for the timber which should be used only in dire emergency. It classified the various parts of the country as to where the main felling should take place. It is relevant today that the two areas that the committee singled out for more or less immediate felling, because the trees were mature, were the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. I was interested that the Business Secretary in the other place, Dr Cable, who I think has a cottage in the New Forest, said recently that the New Forest certainly would not be privatised. I know also that the Forest of Dean is of great concern to my noble friend Lady Royall. We should bear in mind that forestry is a long-term game. It is many years since the end of the war, and those trees that were replanted just after it are now coming to maturity.
I will make a further point about tokenism. When the 1919 Bill had its Second Reading in this House, much of the discussion was about devolution. The term was not used then, but that was what the discussion was about. One of my early tasks at the Forestry Commission was to devise a system of governance that allowed us to have a devolved forestry enterprise, yet at the same time keep a GB entity. We did not have a sufficient critical mass of timber in the three separate countries to sustain a viable body. We had a lot of difficulty with this until we discovered that, just as there was a central advisory committee, it was possible under the original Act to establish three national advisory committees. By reviving these committees that were there in statute, we were able to form a system of governance that has withstood almost a decade and, depending on this Bill, will probably stand the test of time for a while longer. My overall point is that if you have a system of governance with a certain amount of flexibility, it will allow you to deal with contingencies that are unexpected at the time, but which occur in long-term businesses.
I will make two or three further points. The reason why the Forestry Commission and the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee were established was that in 1919, after the war, only 4 per cent of the land in Britain was covered by trees. That figure was almost the lowest in Europe. Over the past 91 years, it has increased to 12 per cent. One may not think that is a huge rise. However, bearing in mind the long-term nature of forestry, it is true that Britain is one of the few countries in the world—if not the only country—that has reafforested. It is quite remarkable, and is recognised by bodies such as the United Nations and by countries such as China that are trying to move into the reafforestation process. Bodies such as the advisory committees have been very helpful to the Forestry Commission in developing that expertise.
My next point concerns the flip side of this, which is timber. We still use a massive amount of timber, even in this world of plastic and synthetics. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture in 1919 told noble Lords of the day in this House that Britain imported 92 per cent of the timber that it used. The situation has got better—but not a lot. We now import in the region of 85 per cent of the timber supply of this country. This is an important reason why we need advisory committees. We are trying to establish timber and wood-using industries in this country. These are often very labour-intensive. When these companies are considering establishing themselves in the UK, their first question is: can we guarantee a sufficient supply of timber? They almost always come to the Forestry Commission—often through its advisory committees—and say, “Will you guarantee us that supply of 30 or 40 per cent?”.
I cite as an example the quite large wood-using power station that was built on Teesside. People would not have gone ahead with that if there had not been a sufficient supply of timber from the state forest to guarantee a critical mass. One might ask, “Why just the state forest?”. The answer is simply that the elasticity of supply and demand very much applies. Timber prices go up and down. When they fall, any private owner thinks, “I am not going to put my timber on the market. I’ll withhold it and, when the prices rise, I’ll put it on the market then”. I accept immediately that that makes sense to the forest owner. However, it does not make sense to the timber and wood user, whether it is someone making pallets, chipboard, paper or whatever. Therefore, we need that critical supply. Is the Minister confident that without advisory committees—we should remember that this is only an advisory committee—there will be sufficient advice for government?
My final point relates to one that I made earlier and it concerns the amount of forest cover. Again, when I was at the Forestry Commission, we decided to look at carbon sequestration and the question of meeting our carbon demands. I start with a couple of statistics which I have used in this House before but which I think are worth repeating. Twenty per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are due to deafforestation, and that is equal to the total emissions from the world’s transport industries. Reafforestation is a win-win situation and, because we have reafforested our country to a certain extent and are acknowledged as having done so, we believe that we have a role to play. However, that role is effective only if we have advisory committees.
In order to challenge ourselves on that premise, we established an eminent advisory committee to look at the issue under the chairmanship of Professor Reed. The committee was composed of foresters, climatologists and scientists. We basically came up with the recommendation that a great deal of carbon capture was involved in afforestation. The committee came up with the second statistic that I shall cite to your Lordships. A 4 per cent increase in tree cover in this country would allow us to capture 10 per cent of our carbon emissions. It is something that the previous Government committed to do and I hope that this Government will pursue it. However, without advisory committees, it would not have been possible to come to that conclusion.
I simply ask the Government to bear these points in mind. Instead of abolishing the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, which I view as tokenism, why not leave it as an advisory committee and it can be used for some unforeseen contingent problem that may occur in the future?
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I defer to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Clark, for his distinguished period as chairman of the Forestry Commission. He has made a very powerful case for the role that forestry plays, whether in the public or the private sector. However, the question for the Committee today is whether the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee will contribute to carbon sequestration and whether it will add to the contribution that forestry makes in this country. A moment’s thought suggests that a committee that has not met for quite a long time is perhaps past its sell-by date.
Having said that, I do not want to denigrate in any way the contribution that forestry makes to land management and to meeting some of our essential needs. It is very important that the forestry estate be increased. Whether the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee has a role to play, I rather doubt. Looking at this group of amendments, we recognise also that the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, reminded us, has not met for over 10 years. I think that we can assume that that is a committee that has also met its sell-by date.
I speak, very briefly, to draw attention to Food From Britain. I have enormous admiration for the work of my late friend Lord Walker, who created Food From Britain when he was Minister of Agriculture at a time when he was appalled by agriculture’s inability to react to the markets. We had been used to the socialist concept of marketing boards. The farmers—I have to declare an interest, as a farmer and an apple grower—were lamentably incapable of reacting to the needs of supermarkets as those were evolving and to the demands of the market. He pointed out that, unless we had an organisation within Government—within the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was then—that could relate the farmers’ priorities adequately and make farmers more aware of the realities of the market, we would lose out to our competitors. That was very successful.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady O’Cathain is not in her place because I remember vividly that she was one of the five advisers that Peter Walker—as he was then—appointed. While recognising that all good organisations have to recognise the realities of time, I would not wish this provision, which will consign Food From Britain to history, to go without record. I am personally enormously grateful for the contribution that it made.
Lord Henley
I shall respond to one particularly lengthy speech from my fellow Cumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, who spoke at some length, allegedly about the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, although most of his remarks related to debates that we will have later on the Forestry Commission. Those debates will, fortunately, not be tonight and I will respond to those remarks on that occasion.
With these amendments, those noble Lords who can remember their Monty Python were dealing with dead parrots. Amendment 29, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, relates to the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, which, as he said, has not met for something like 10 years. From a sedentary position I said, on two or three occasions, “19 years”. Is there any purpose in keeping such a body going? It has withered on the vine; it is a dead parrot.
Moving on to Food From Britain, as I think others have said, FFB ceased its activities in 2009 following a decision by the previous Administration to reduce its grant in aid—one of those rare occasions on which the previous Government did something to reduce expenditure. It is another dead parrot.
Coming to the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, we will address during later debates the matters relating to the Forestry Commission that the noble Lord, Lord Clark, regaled us with at some length, but he was kind enough to remind us that, under his chairmanship of the Forestry Commission, that body last met in, I think he said, September 2005. Yet again, it is another dead parrot, which I do not think it is necessary to keep going. The noble Lord said that abolishing the advisory committee is not going to save any money and he carefully quoted from, I think, my Written Answer that it had cost something like £625 in total since 2005. He reckoned, quite rightly, that most of that money was probably in the earlier years—there were very little savings. However, I do not think that we should keep bodies going merely because they are costing nothing. If they are not doing anything, why not wind them up? This is a very useful tidying-up operation.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I just want to make myself absolutely clear. The Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee was not set up until 1939. The original Act did not include such a body, but it did include an advisory committee that could be used for different purposes. My point is: if it is not costing any money, is it not useful to have in your armoury an advisory committee that can change its interest to face the problem that you may have to deal with? That is the thrust of what I am arguing.
Lord Henley
I see things differently from the noble Lord. If it is not doing anything, if it has not met since 2005, if it is what I have described in Monty Python terms as a dead parrot, why do we not get rid of it? We do not need to have it in our armoury. Should we need such a thing again, we can set up an appropriate panel as necessary. It is not necessary to keep it going as the noble Lord wishes.
We have dealt with quite a few dead parrots. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, would accept that they are dead, dead and very dead, particularly the one that has not sat since 2005.
I now turn to the two remaining bodies: the environment protection advisory committees and the regional and local fisheries advisory committees. They are statutory committees that advise the Environment Agency. The Government's aim in proposing the abolition of those committees in Schedule 1 is not to remove that advisory function. Indeed, both committees have provided valuable advice to the agency, and it will continue to need that advice. However, having two sets of committees on a regional, statutory basis creates a degree of inflexibility and inefficiency that is now proving unduly restrictive.
Defra now wishes the Environment Agency to establish more flexible non-statutory arrangements that will enable better local engagement of all interested parties at the catchment level, including in delivery, together with a more integrated approach between environmental protection, conservation and fisheries. Such a structure will have the flexibility to evolve as needed, without the constraints of a prescriptive statutory remit at the regional level, and will better address local priorities while working with partners and communities to deliver improved local engagement. That will enable civil society to take the lead where appropriate, rather than continue the current focus on advising the Environment Agency.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that. I appreciate that those two bodies are slightly different from the earlier ones, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept my basic premise that certainly three out of the five are very, very dead parrots indeed. I therefore hope that he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for that clarification. On this side of the House, we will not be tempted to enter into his script of re-enacting Monty Python and claim that the parrot is only half dead. We will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borrie
Lord Borrie
My Lords, the Competition Service, to which the amendment applies, is a very small cog in the wheel of competition policy, which this Government, the previous Government and most Governments over many years have regarded as a vital part of policy for the British economy. Competition is good for the economy. I question the Government's reasoning for listing the Competition Service among the bodies that should be abolished under Schedule 1.
It was created under the Enterprise Act 2002 as an executive non-departmental public body to fund and provide support services for the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the top body in court terms, which hears appeals on matters relating to competition. The Competition Service’s work is dedicated entirely to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I do not know whether it has been officially announced, and the Minister will no doubt tell me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Government have in mind that in future the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which will no longer have this dedicated service of the Competition Service to assist it, will be supported and serviced by the general Tribunals Service, which was not in existence in 2007, and therefore the Government could not then make it available for the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
The function of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, as I have indicated, is as an appeal body from the Competition Commission, and it is obvious to everyone concerned that its independent judicial role must be backed up by an independent administrative service. That is so at present. The Competition Appeal Tribunal gets an independent service and, as I understand it, is very satisfied with the service it receives from this body that the Government wish to abolish. There is no question of this public body, the Competition Service—I revert to the discussion on the previous matter—being a dead parrot, having no function. It has an important and useful administrative function.
It should be said that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has a UK-wide jurisdiction. It covers not just England and Wales, but Scotland too. It hears appeals and judicial reviews on competition matters and other related regulated matters, and it has a High Court judge as president, so it is a high-powered, much-respected body. My understanding is that when competition judges from different parts of the world meet together, this body we have in Britain is regarded as a very efficient and effective judicial body. The small—the Minister will, no doubt, indicate how much it costs and so on—Competition Service, which supports the Competition Appeal Tribunal, is virtually part of it. In effect, the Competition Appeal Tribunal administers itself, so if it is abolished, it would be in a much weaker position and would have to go to the more general body, the Tribunals Service, where people would have to be specially trained for the relatively rare cases it received on matters of competition. It would be very different if the Competition Appeal Tribunal was dependent on the large, general Tribunal Services for its support. I think that should be a matter of concern. Any savings from the abolition of the Competition Service seem to me to be most unlikely. It may, indeed, cost more because of the training required for the staff of the general Tribunals Service in order to cope with competition cases.
Moreover—and this is a matter on which I should be grateful for an answer—I understand that the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service have UK-wide jurisdiction. I think I said that a little earlier, but what I want to say now is that the Tribunals Service, to which the Government seem to intend this body should go for administrative support, has jurisdiction in England and Wales only, and it is being considered by the Government for merger with the Courts Service, which makes a certain amount of sense. The Courts Service covers England and Wales, and the Tribunals Service is largely England and Wales, but it would not be in this particular instance. I wonder whether it is intended that if the Competition Appeal Tribunal is dealing with, say, a Scottish case, it would be administered differently from when it is dealing with an English case. Certainly, there would be expense, trouble and difficulty in training if it were otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not propose detaining us for long, because my noble friend Lord Borrie has put the kernel of the case. I just want to make a couple of points. We are told that a working group is currently examining the case for abolishing this body. Early in 2011, it will report to the Secretary of State for Justice and the Secretary of State for Business with its recommendations. No final decisions will be taken before then. Apparently, the working group consists of BIS, TS, HMT and Competition Service officials. It is examining all the relevant aspects of a possible transfer and abolition, including financial, legal, judicial and policy. It aims to produce a report for Ministers that sets out the pros and cons of such an abolition and transfer. If that consultation is taking place, it seems to us rather strange that this should appear in Schedule 1. Would it not be preferable if we awaited the outcome of the consultation process? All the other points in relation to this have been made. Given the time, I await eagerly the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his amendment because it means that we have to look carefully at what we have said and what we are doing. With his background in the Office of Fair Trading and my experience of working with him over the years, I know how valuable his opinion is in these matters. He has rightly said that the Competition Appeal Tribunal was created by the Enterprise Act 2002. It hears appeals on competition and regulated industry cases and is independent from other competition bodies, such as the OFT and the Competition Commission, because it hears appeals against their decisions. Rightly, he explained how special it is.
The Competition Service was created by the Enterprise Act to provide administrative and other support to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. It has no function other than being a service for the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Government believe that the way in which this function is being provided is not making the most effective use of resources and that there may be cost savings and increased efficiencies if the functions of the Competition Service were transferred to the Tribunals Service, to which the noble Lord referred.
The consequence of this would be transferring the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would then receive its support from the Tribunals Service. The Competition Service would then be abolished. However, no final decision has been taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, a working group has been set up to test the case for making this proposed abolition and transfer. It is a decision that we will not take lightly. The working group will report to Ministers in BIS and the Minister of Justice in early 2011. They will then decide whether to proceed with the abolition and the transfer. In carrying out this review, the Government are clear that there should be no adverse impact on the operation of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would operate as an independent tribunal under the aegis of the Tribunals Service. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, finds that reassuring.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green for speaking. He made a significant point in saying that if the Government have not yet entirely made up their mind about abolition, this body should never have been included in Schedule 1. I do not think, with respect to the noble Baroness, that she answered that satisfactorily because it could have been included in Schedule 7 if there is such a degree of uncertainty. But I add that I am delighted that there is uncertainty because it shows that the Government are willing to think again about the matter. Further, the fact that they are having discussions with Sir Gerald Barling, the president of the tribunal, is a good thing because, as I indicated earlier, the tribunal and the Competition Service are really one and the same body. I am sure that no one, neither the Government nor anyone else, would want that body to be less effective and efficient than it appears to be according to its worldwide reputation at the moment.
I am also delighted to learn from the noble Baroness that the matter of UK-wide jurisdiction is being considered by the working group. All I can say in a more general way, if I may be permitted, is that it is a great pity that working groups, whether on this particular public body or on others, were not set up before we rushed into a long list of bodies to be abolished in Schedule 1. I thank the noble Baroness and of course I shall withdraw my amendment.