House of Commons
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
business before questions
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
1. What assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth in Northern Ireland of the increase in the basic rate of value added tax.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
Before answering, may I pay tribute to Ranger David Dalzell of the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment? He came from Bangor, but he was also stationed with his regiment in my constituency at Tern Hill. I am sure the whole House will join me in offering our condolences to his family and friends, and thanking this brave young man for his service to his country after he was killed in Helmand this week.
The reckless years of debt and spending made the VAT rise a necessary step for national economic recovery. Forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the Government’s plans will deliver sustainable growth for each of the next five years, with employment rising by 1.1 million by 2015, and the deficit falling.
Bridget Phillipson
When will the Secretary of State set out his paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy? That is particularly crucial at a time when the VAT rise is damaging local retailers.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Lady is correct. We need to bring the paper forward as a team effort, working with local Ministers. I will come to that in response to later questions. We had a very satisfactory meeting with the Exchequer Secretary earlier this week, and we hope to publish the paper as soon as possible.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Further to that answer, how long will the consultation period on the document be when it is released?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs for his question. That has to be finally decided, but I would estimate that we should have a public consultation period of two to three months.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State on Ranger Dalzell. Across the House we are all well aware of the bravery and courage that all those young men show. We sympathise with his family at this time.
On VAT, shoppers from the Republic of Ireland coming across to Northern Ireland contribute greatly to the economy of Northern Ireland. The VAT increase has impacted directly on Northern Ireland, leading to a 10% reduction in sales and a 28% reduction in exports. What will the Secretary of State do to address that?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on Ranger Dalzell.
Cross-border taxation is an issue that we will consider as part of the paper. We are acutely aware of the ability of consumers to move their spending rapidly either way, depending on taxation.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State put into context the changes in taxation? Basic rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland have had their personal allowance increase, which has taken many of them out of the tax net.
Mr Paterson
We regard Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland taxpayers pay their tax and receive public spending in return.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to Ranger Dalzell and his family.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that he wants to be Northern Ireland’s man in the Cabinet. As he knows, following the rise in VAT instituted by his Government, a litre of fuel in Northern Ireland is the most expensive in any part of the UK. Can he tell the House why it is more expensive in Belfast than in North Shropshire, and what a litre of fuel costs in Belfast this morning?
Mr Paterson
Prices vary from 120p to 133p for petrol or diesel, but the right hon. Gentleman should remember that it was his Government who increased the rate of duty on fuel. He was in the bunker with the great incompetent for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who got the country into this mess in the first place.
Mr Woodward
I am glad that the Secretary of State managed to find an answer in his folder. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister are asking him urgently for help in Northern Ireland now. He has been in the job for nearly a year, but so far there has been no real help on the economy, just a promised paper on the economy that is still stuck in the printing press. Meanwhile, VAT is up, fuel prices are up and private sector business activity is reporting the biggest fall in 26 months. Hundreds are losing their jobs at Belfast Metropolitan college, 4,000 more are due to lose their jobs in health and social services and tens of thousands more jobs will go in the public sector. In Dublin, demand evaporates. Now we learn that he is losing his battle with the Chancellor for a future grab on end-of-year funding from the Executive. We can all see that it is hurting. When are people in Northern Ireland going to see it is working?
Mr Paterson
I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has the nerve. When he was sitting in the bunker in Downing street shoring up his former boss, who overruled the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) when he wanted to raise VAT, the Belfast News Letter found out that I was in Northern Ireland more than he was. We were in the danger zone in May, but thanks to the measures that we have taken, everyone in the UK, including in Northern Ireland and Lancashire, are in a better place as we establish stability in the public finances. We cannot go on spending £120 million a day on debt interest.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
2. What his policy is on the use of stop-and-search powers by security forces in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State updated the House this morning on plans to make amendments to powers of stop and search in Northern Ireland. These powers are essential in Northern Ireland for tackling the threat from terrorism. They have prevented attacks, saved lives and led to arrests and convictions. The Police Service of Northern Ireland uses all available legislation to deal with the terrorist threat. Oversight and accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that powers are used properly.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank the Minister for that response and for the statement that has been placed in the Library. The use of section 44 powers has undoubtedly saved lives in Northern Ireland, along with powers under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007. What assurances can he give the House that the PSNI will in no way be hampered in its efforts to disrupt and prevent terrorist activities?
Mr Swire
That is an entirely legitimate question. The changes that we are making are to bring legislation in Northern Ireland into line with changes to section 44. The hon. Gentleman should be reassured, because, as he would imagine, we have been discussing these matters closely with the PSNI. It has a range of other powers at its disposal, but I agree that it would be a retrograde step to limit its powers at what is a difficult time in Northern Ireland. The proposed amendment will not do that.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister kindly confirm the precise details of the Army’s powers of stop and search if deployed in Northern Ireland?
With your leave, Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their generous tributes to my young constituent—only 20 years of age—David Dalzell, who fought alongside his fellow Rangers in 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment with great courage, enthusiasm and pride, but sadly lost his life in a tragic accident in Afghanistan at the weekend. I thank all Members for their comments today.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
How can the Minister justify not changing the Army’s powers of stop and search in Northern Ireland, which exceed those granted to the police under the 2007 Act? They are not subject to annual renewal by Parliament as emergency provisions, as they were throughout the years of the troubles, and are now permanent and not subject to any of the accountability checks that apply to police powers?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the rising terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, and he will recognise the part played by the military’s bomb disposal units and the need to go about their business, not least in his own city of Londonderry, where unfortunately we had an incident recently.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
When the police in Northern Ireland have used stop-and-search powers, they have used them when there is a reasonable suspicion of terrorist activity. Will the Minister reassure the House that that will continue to be the case? Dissident republican activity is on the rise, and those powers are required principally and forcibly by the police to thwart that terrorist threat.
Mr Swire
Look, we want to make those powers watertight; we do not wish to water them down. It is because the PSNI has used those powers proportionately that we are where we are with section 44, and the Home Secretary was clear in saying that. She went to Northern Ireland and specifically said that the PSNI had been behaving properly, but we do not want anything we do in Northern Ireland to be subject to a possible challenge. That is why we are taking that action, and why a code of practice will be worked out in conjunction with the PSNI—as I say, to make the powers that we have watertight, not to water them down.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
3. What arrangements he has made to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources to meet threats from dissident activity.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
Funding for the PSNI is primarily a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. However, this Government are committed to ensuring that the Chief Constable has the necessary resources to counter the threat posed by terrorist groups. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister has made a strong case to the Treasury for access to additional resources, but discussions are continuing at the highest level, and I am confident that we will have a satisfactory outcome soon.
Mr David
The Chief Constable of the PSNI has requested an extra £200 million to deal with the perceived dissident threat in Northern Ireland. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was “interrogating the request”. Surely we should have had a proper response by now.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister have made that request, and we are taking it extremely seriously. The bid is, of course, for money over four years, which is probably unprecedented for the reserve, and it is not an easy matter, given the national economic circumstances that we face. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, of the Chancellor’s words yesterday. He said:
“We will treat the request with due diligence, but I am clear that security comes first. That will be my priority.” —[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 148.]
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
The Secretary of State will no doubt be as delighted as I am by the proposed visit of the Queen down to Dublin, but he will have seen the news on republican websites that there is likely to be dissident activity. What assistance will be given to the PSNI during that difficult period?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend will know that no visit has formally been confirmed, although everyone in the House would welcome one. I should like to confirm that we have the closest possible collaboration with the Garda Siochana out in Dublin. A couple of weeks ago I met the new commissioner, Martin Callinan, and I am delighted to say that he is absolutely as robust and as determined to face down those terrorists as his predecessor, Fachtna Murphy.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Given the continuing perceived threat from dissident activity, the disruption to normal human and economic activity two weeks ago in Belfast, and the calculating callousness of leaving a booby-trap device on a child’s bicycle, will the Secretary of State now take action to ensure that intelligence is transferred from MI5 to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has all the accountability mechanisms in place?
Mr Paterson
I agree with the hon. Lady about the disgusting nature of those terrorists: booby-trapping a child’s bicycle is absolutely revolting. I know that her strong belief is that the regime should be changed, but at this moment it would be crazy to move the furniture around. Let me make it very clear that Lord Carlile, who conducted an independent review of the matter, said that MI5 and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are working very closely together, and that we could not do more work, or do it more energetically, to deal with what is a very difficult threat. I am afraid that we just have to disagree on this matter, but I do agree that we have to do everything that we can to bear down—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am immensely grateful to the Secretary of State, but we must move on.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Although PSNI funding is rightly the responsibility of the devolved Administration, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, in the event that dissident activity becomes much stronger, resources may be made available from the UK Government?
Mr Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We made it clear that a bid has been made by the Justice Minister, whom I met on Monday and talked to this morning on the phone. We are raising this at the highest level of government and we are determined to stand by Northern Ireland and do the right thing.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
It would be churlish of me to let this occasion pass without congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of State, on his elevation to the Privy Council, and I do so with pleasure.
It would be negligent of me—
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there is real pressure on time, so let us get on with the question.
Stephen Pound
It would be negligent of me, Mr Speaker, not to remind the Secretary of State that the request for additional funding has been with the Treasury since last year—for months. The signal that we send to dissident terrorists is the most important thing here. Will the Secretary of State fight for Ulster, fight against the dissidents and fight with the Treasury to get this money, which the PSNI needs now?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations to my right hon. Friend. He is not quite right about the request—[Interruption.] No, he is not right to say “months”. The Minister of Justice has negotiated within the Executive and got a significant increase from his fellow Ministers, which we welcome. Having resolved where he stood with the Executive, he then wrote to me with a request calling on the reserve. That letter came to me in January.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the level of threat to security in Northern Ireland posed by residual terrorist groups; and if he will make a statement.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the threat to security in Northern Ireland from dissident groups.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the level of threat to security in Northern Ireland posed by residual terrorist groups; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. So far this year there have been 15 arrests and three persons charged with terrorist-related offences. This follows 210 arrests and 80 persons charged in 2010. The severity of the threat was highlighted by the recent Antrim road incident, for which there have been three arrests in the past 48 hours. This attack not only endangered lives but also caused major disruption to local communities and businesses.
Graham Evans
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that cross-border co-operation between the north and the south is essential to address the level of threat posed by terrorist groups?
Mr Swire
In a word, yes. My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he has now met the new chief of the Garda Siochana, Martin Callinan. We continue to work very closely with the Garda, which has had some very lucky finds and some finds as a result of its hard work and co-operation with the PSNI. We applaud the work—
John Woodcock
The Minister has made it clear that he is in negotiation with the Treasury over the extra funds needed to tackle dissident groups. Can he say at this stage whether he agrees with the assessment of the Chief Constable that this money is required?
Mr Swire
Clearly we do, because we have endorsed it. These things do not come out of the blue. We are working very closely with the PSNI. We continue to work with the Department of Justice and David Ford, and we continue to work with the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman needs to think about the sums of money that are involved in all these things. He would surely agree that it is only fit, right and proper that the Treasury looks at all applications for funding very closely so that we do not find ourselves in the same hole that we were in when we came into power in May last year.
Glyn Davies
The recent third annual report of the independent reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 states:
“So far as terrorism is concerned, the activities of the residual terrorist groups have been dangerous and disruptive.”
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to help Northern Ireland to combat this threat?
Mr Swire
The threat in Northern Ireland is extremely serious. The majority of people in Northern Ireland are against the residual terrorist groups, which have no support in the community and are disrupting businesses. In the case of the Antrim road incident, they put about 100 people out of their houses on one of the coldest nights of the year. We continue to work extremely closely with the PSNI. The PSNI works with the Garda in the Republic of Ireland to bear down on these terrorists. We are certain that we can do that and drive them out. They have no place in modern Northern Ireland—
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Intelligence agencies tell us that a republican group in County Tyrone is planning to announce its appearance with a bombing wave in Northern Ireland. One hundred members of the Provisional IRA have seemingly pledged their allegiance to this new group. Can the Minister assure the House that any republican prisoner released under the Belfast agreement who becomes a member of this group will immediately be returned to prison?
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for the work they have been doing with the Treasury to address the problems that are faced with dissident terrorist activity. Is the Minister concerned that the current to-ing and fro-ing is giving succour to those dissident terrorists when what the Treasury needs to do is to stand by commitments made?
Mr Swire
No, I do not believe that. I do believe, as I said to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), that the PSNI has made a good case to the Treasury. We have worked on that with the PSNI and the Department of Justice. It is now up to the various bodies involved to negotiate an outcome. I can only repeat what the Chancellor said yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound):
“I am clear that security comes first.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 148.]
I have no reason to suppose that the Chancellor has changed his mind in the intervening 24 hours.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Will the Minister comment on the assessments that have been made of the intentions of dissident republicans here on the mainland with regard to the preparations for the Olympics? What might that activity mean in terms of future terrorist attacks here?
Mr Swire
The right hon. Gentleman asks that question 15 years to the day since the Canary Wharf bombing, which heralded the end of the IRA ceasefire. It is therefore a timely question on a date that we all remember. Of course, there is a threat here from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. That is why, for the first time ever, the Home Secretary raised the threat level. I assure hon. Members that all services are working closely together to ensure that any attempt to disrupt the Olympics or any other occasion of national importance in the coming months or years—
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
5. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Minister of State and I met last week with the Exchequer Secretary and Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Deputy First Minister, Minister of Finance and Personnel, and Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Finance to discuss the Government paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy and promoting investment and growth.
Greg Hands
Given the coming corporation tax cut, the national insurance contributions holiday for small businesses and the avoidance of Labour’s national insurance tax increase next month, does the Secretary of State agree that this Government are restoring Northern Ireland’s reputation as a destination for inward investment, which was badly damaged by the previous Government?
Mr Paterson
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. We had an excellent meeting at Hillsborough only last week with a number of major businesses, at which we saw significant investment coming in from Denmark. I am pleased to say that our plans were endorsed by a coalition of significant business organisations last week.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State outline his assessment of the potential impact on the Northern Ireland economy of the reduction in corporation tax, and of its cost?
Mr Paterson
The coalition of businesses that I mentioned gave an estimate last week of 94,000 jobs, and the Northern Ireland Economic Reform Group published a report yesterday with an estimate of 90,000 jobs. On the costs, the hon. Gentleman should consider the case of Canada, where corporation tax has been reduced over recent years and revenue has increased. He will have to be patient and wait for the publication of our paper, which I hope will happen soon.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland urgently needs meaningful action on creating economic opportunity? Has there been any discussion about how we might create the authority for the Northern Ireland Executive to create bonds, thereby creating private funding to boost our construction industry and build the necessary schools and infrastructure that are missing?
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. [Hon. Members: “Hear! Hear!”] Agreement is one thing; abiding by it is another. Ministers cannot even hear what is being asked. A bit of order please.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will have a consultation period once the paper is published. He made an interesting suggestion, which the Chancellor will have heard. I hope that he will put it through formally in the consultation process.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
7. When the Government expect to publish their proposals for rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Exchequer Secretary, the Minister of State and I continue to work intensively with Northern Ireland Ministers on the Government’s consultation paper to set out measures aimed at rebalancing and growing the Northern Ireland economy. We hope to complete our work and publish the paper soon.
Chris Evans
Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland economy needs to stimulate the private sector? How do the Government propose to do that?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is right. According to one report, Northern Ireland’s economy depends on public spending for 77.6% of its gross domestic product. That is wholly and totally unsustainable. I have been visiting Northern Ireland for three and a half years now and visiting businesses, and we are considering a whole range of measures for rebalancing the economy and helping to promote the private sector, which will be published in our report. There are excellent private businesses in Northern Ireland, just not enough.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that to travel from Aldergrove airport in Northern Ireland on a transatlantic flight, a passenger has to spend an additional £150 in tax. If he travelled from the south of Ireland, 90 miles away, as of 1 March he would pay €3 in tax. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that to encourage people to travel on transatlantic flights from Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I discussed it with Declan Kelly, the US envoy, 10 days ago, and it was also discussed at our meeting with local Ministers and the Exchequer Secretary earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is working on it with colleagues in the Treasury.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 February.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Ranger David Dalzell, from 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment, who died on Friday, and Warrant Officer Class 2 Colin Beckett, from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who died on Saturday. They were both highly respected soldiers who served with the utmost dedication and pride. They will be hugely missed by their colleagues and by all who knew them, and our deepest sympathy should be with their family and their friends.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Roger Williams
I know that the whole House will want to join the Prime Minister in his expression of sympathy for the recent loss of life in Afghanistan. Training establishments in my constituency, such as the Sennybridge ranges and the infantry battle school, have built up very good relationships between the community and the military, which are ongoing and strengthening.
UK universities have a worldwide reputation for teaching and research. Many foreign students wish to attend those universities, and they are important not least because of the £5 billion that they contribute to the national economy. Many universities are very concerned that Government proposals—
Roger Williams
Can the Prime Minister give an assurance to the universities that any proposals will not discourage the recruitment of genuine students?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. Our universities in this country are world-class, and we want students from around the world to come to those universities to study, not just for the contribution that they bring financially but because of the links they will make between our country and their country in years to come.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not currently looking at limits on tier 4 immigration visas, but I make this point to anybody who is concerned about the issue: I profoundly believe that we can have excellent universities, open to foreign students, and control immigration at the same time. The reason I am so confident is that last year there were about 91,000 students who did not go to the trusted universities but went to other colleges—some 600 colleges. I am sure that the extent of the abuse is very great, and if we crack down on that abuse we can make sure that there are many students coming to our excellent universities.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Ranger David Dalzell, from 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment, and Warrant Officer Class 2 Colin Beckett, from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. We should all remember both men for their heroism, their dedication and their sacrifice, and our deep condolences go to their family and friends.
Can the Prime Minister tell us, how is his big society going?
The Prime Minister
I actually believe that almost every single Member of this House of Commons backs what we are talking about. Let me just explain what it is. The idea of devolving power to local authorities, and beyond to communities, was in his manifesto, in my manifesto and indeed in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I think we all support it. The idea of opening up public services to more local involvement and control, again, was in all our manifestos, and we support it. I believe that probably every single Member of the House spends time in their own constituency encouraging volunteering and philanthropic giving, and wants people to play a bigger part in a bigger society. I think the whole House is united on that.
Edward Miliband
We all support thriving communities, which is why there is such concern from charities up and down the country. Why does the Prime Minister not listen to people who know a lot about volunteering, such as Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, the chief executive of Community Service Volunteers, which is the largest volunteering charity in Britain, who says that his policies are “destroying the volunteer army”?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, I do not agree with what Dame Elisabeth Hoodless has said, but I want to work with all those involved in charities and voluntary bodies to encourage them to play a strong part. We are putting £470 million into charities and voluntary bodies across this spending review. We are also establishing a £100 million transition fund to help charities that are affected by cuts. I can today tell the right hon. Gentleman for the first time that because of our deal with the banks the big society bank—[Interruption.] Wait for it. The big society bank will be taking £200 million from Britain’s banks to put into the voluntary sector. Labour would have got nothing out of the banks, so I am sure that he will want to stand up and welcome that.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister does not mention that he is cutting billions of pounds from voluntary sector organisations up and down this country. Let us take an example of where parents volunteer and of a crucial part of local communities: Sure Start. Before the election, he promised to protect Sure Start, but in fact he decided to cut funding by 9%, and the Daycare Trust says that 250 Sure Starts are expected to close. Can he tell us how that is helping the big society?
The Prime Minister
First, let me just say this: Labour put money into the banks; we are taking money out of the banks and putting it into the big society.
The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically about Sure Start and the Daycare Trust. I must say that, not for the first time, he has not done his homework, because the chief executive of the Daycare Trust, Anand Shukla, said:
“The Government has allocated sufficient funding for the existing network of Sure Start Children’s Centres to be maintained”—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. These exchanges are excessively rowdy—[Interruption.] Order. Again, I must ask Members on both sides to consider what the public think of this sort of behaviour. The Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Order. Questions will be heard, and the answers from the Prime Minister will be heard.
The Prime Minister
I look forward to the answer to this one. We have maintained the money for Sure Start and the money for children’s centres, and the head of the Daycare Trust backs our view rather than the right hon. Gentleman’s.
Edward Miliband
No, the Prime Minister has cut the funding and we will judge him on whether Sure Start centres close over the coming months.
The problem with the Prime Minister’s argument on local government, and with the nonsense peddled by the local government Secretary, is that they say they can make 28% cuts in local government funding and not affect any front-line services. What does the Conservative head of the Local Government Association say about that? She says that the local government Secretary is “detached from reality”.
Let us ask about libraries. Four libraries are threatened with closure in the Prime Minister’s own constituency, and hundreds are threatened up and down the country. Can he explain to people who are concerned about that how he expects people to volunteer at the local library if it is being shut down?
The Prime Minister
Let me just deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s question on Sure Start. I know he got that wrong—[Interruption.] We will come to libraries in a minute. On Sure Start, the budget is going from £2.212 million to £2.297 million. That budget is going up. That is what is happening.
The right hon. Gentleman gave a particular example, so let me put one to him—[Interruption.] We will come to libraries. Let me take the case of one council: Liverpool council. The cuts will mean that, by 2013, Liverpool council will go back to the level of grant it received in 2009, so what we are seeing is politically motivated moves by Labour councils. I remember the times when Labour leaders stood up to Labour councils that made those decisions.
On the issue of libraries, because we are taking council spending back generally to the level of the grants in 2007, I see no reason why they should not continue with a very well funded network of libraries. We all know a truth about libraries, which is that those which will succeed are those that wake up to the world of new technology, the internet and everything else, and investment goes in. That is what needs to happen. Should councils look at community solutions for other libraries? I believe that they should. Instead of sniping and jumping on every bandwagon, the right hon. Gentleman should get behind the big society.
Edward Miliband
Only this Prime Minister could blame the libraries for closing. He needs to understand why his big society idea is in such trouble. It is because libraries, Sure Start centres, citizens advice bureaux, community centres—including in Hammersmith and Fulham, his flagship council—which are at the heart of our society, are threatened with closure up and down the country. If it is going so well, why does his big society adviser, Paul Twivy, say that this idea
“is increasingly loathed by the public”?
The Prime Minister
We were all waiting for the right hon. Gentleman’s big idea, and we have now got it. Labour has published its fresh new ideas. The tree was chopped down, but there is nothing in the book. We all knew that we wanted a blank page, but no one thought that he would publish a whole book of them. What are his plans? What are his great ideas? He has not got a single idea for making this country a better place. Instead of sniping, why does he not join in and work out how we could build a bigger society in our country?
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister should not get so angry: it will cloud his judgment. He is not the first Prime Minister I have said that to—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Did not the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) get to the truth behind the Prime Minister’s motives? The right hon. Gentleman said:
“If you talk about the small state, people think you’re Attila the Hun. If you talk about the big society, people think you’re Mother Teresa.”
After what the Prime Minister is doing to charities up and down this country, no one will think he is Mother Teresa. Is not the truth being exposed day by day—he is cutting too far and too fast, and society is becoming smaller and weaker, not bigger and stronger?
The Prime Minister
The problem with everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said is that all the cuts that we are having to make are because of the complete mess that he made of the economy. That is the background for this whole debate. We now know what they think of the inheritance that they left us, because the shadow Chancellor has said:
“I don’t think we had a structural deficit at all in that period”.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says:
“By the eve of the financial crisis…the UK”
had
“one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.”
May I advise the right hon. Gentleman that the first stage of recovery is to recognise that you have a problem? The truth about the Opposition is that they doubled the debt, let the banks rip and bankrupted the country, and their only message is, “Let us do it all over again.”
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Q2. My constituent, Rifleman Jack Otter, lost both his legs and an arm while serving in Afghanistan more than 15 months ago. I am sure that the Prime Minister and the whole House understand the debt that we owe Jack and others like him who have served our country. With the number of British soldiers losing limbs having increased by 40% from 2009 to 2010, does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that we find access to new resources to ensure that patients and staff at Headley Court can continue their excellent standard of work, which is sadly coming under greater pressure?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about what is happening in terms of the number of people returning as single, double and sometimes treble amputees, and about what we as a society must do to support them. I have visited Headley Court, and I know that many others have done so. It is an absolutely magnificent facility. A new ward opened in September last year and it now has a capacity of 111 trauma beds. Because of what Help for Heroes has done, there is a 25-metre swimming pool, a Battle of Britain gym with a sprung sports floor and a centre for mental and cognitive health. But we must go on ensuring that that magnificent facility is continually improved and that we do everything for our brave returning soldiers.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Just over a year ago the Prime Minister visited a maternity unit and found our midwives to be overworked. As a result, he promised that, with a Conservative Government, he would bring about 3,000 more midwives. A year on, could he tell us how he has gone about that?
The Prime Minister
The first thing that we have done is ignored the advice from Labour and increased the NHS budget. We would not be making progress on any of these health issues if we had followed the advice of the hon. Lady’s party and cut the NHS. We do need more midwives and more resources; we are making sure that those are going in.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Q3. Will the Prime Minister reflect on the decision taken in the House of Lords on Monday, which was supported by many senior Conservatives and Cross Benchers, to enable Parliament to have a review in the event of fewer than four in 10 people participating in the AV referendum? Will my right hon. Friend consider this compromise to be a reasonable one and to be consistent with the coalition agreement? Failing that, will he trust his own Back Benchers in a free vote to make their own judgments?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to my hon. Friend that we have not had thresholds in previous referendums, but I do not think that he should be so down on this. I am sure—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister’s answer must be heard. All this noise is—[Interruption.] Order. All this noise is damaging colleagues’ chance of getting in.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that my hon. Friend will work with me to get the turnout up, particularly for the no vote.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Last week a cross-party Welsh Affairs Committee report criticised the Government’s proposal to close Newport passport office, which will see the loss of 250 jobs, be devastating for the economy of Newport and does not appear to be saving any money. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), so that we can put the case to him personally?
The Prime Minister
I am looking at this decision. It is an important decision, and I know that there is great work being done in reflecting on what jobs can be saved in Newport and Liverpool, where the two competing offices are. I am very happy to arrange for the hon. Lady to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, because he is the one who will have to make the decision, so that he can hear from her and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) directly.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Q4. What assessment he has made of the effect of coalition politics on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
The Prime Minister
We have made it clear that we are committed to maintaining a nuclear deterrent based on Trident. That is why it was excluded from the strategic defence and security review, and why we commissioned a separate value-for-money study. The replacement of Trident is going ahead, and initial gate will be passed soon. As set out in the coalition agreement, the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.
Dr Lewis
When the coalition was being formed, my right hon. Friend promised a meeting of all Conservative MPs that the Liberal Democrats would support the replacement of Trident. As we know, the key decision has been postponed until after the next election, and the Liberal Democrats, from their president downwards, have been boasting that this was their achievement. Will the Prime Minister give a pledge to this House and to the country that in the event of another hung Parliament, if the Liberal Democrats demand as the price for another coalition the scrapping of Trident, he will refuse to pay that price?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me make this point. The replacement of Trident is going ahead. The investment is going in; the initial gate will soon be passed. The reason for the delay is that we had a value-for-money study because we desperately need to save some money in the Ministry of Defence, so that we can invest in front-line capability. That is the argument there. In terms of the future, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, a continuous at-sea deterrent and making sure that we keep our guard up. That is Conservative policy; it will remain Conservative policy as long as I am the leader of this party.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
But with due respect, the Prime Minister chose to break his word on the education maintenance allowance and matters such as reorganising the NHS, so why will this pledge prove any different?
The Prime Minister
I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and I know how important this issue is for him. I profoundly believe that we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. I have looked at all the alternatives over the years, and I am completely convinced that we need a submarine-based alternative—a full replacement for Trident—in order to guarantee the ultimate insurance policy for this country. That is my view, the view of my party and the view of most of the people sitting opposite me. I believe that there is all-party support for the move.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Q5. Lord Carlile, the official reviewer of terrorism legislation, said last week that this country had become a “safe haven” for terrorists. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that this Government will do all that they possibly can to deport foreign nationals who are suspected of involvement in terrorism?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this point. I have been concerned for many years that we have not been able to deport people we suspect of plotting against us in the way that we should be able to. Lord Carlile has spoken and written about this extremely clearly. We have negotiated return agreements—so-called deportation with assurance agreements—with Algeria, Jordan, Ethiopia, Libya and Lebanon, but I want us to negotiate many, many more. In the end, we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that we can keep this country safe.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Q6. Northern Ireland is still being held back by some dissident republican groups. To deal with this, the Chief Constable has asked for up-front access to the reserve allocation over the next four years. Does the Prime Minister agree that, if the threat is not dealt with, it will quickly spread to the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he grant the Chief Constable’s request?
The Prime Minister
I have met the Chief Constable on several occasions since becoming Prime Minister. He came to the meeting of the National Security Council at which we discussed the security situation in Northern Ireland. We will do what is necessary to ensure that security, the police and everything else are properly funded. I think that it is right, now that these issues are devolved, that there is greater decision making and greater efforts to put money into the front line in Northern Ireland itself, but of course we always stand ready to help where necessary.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The Prime Minister might recall visiting the maternity department at Fairfield hospital in Bury when he was Leader of the Opposition. Last week, despite our pledge to keep it open and despite the very useful new criteria issued by the Department of Health, the NHS in the north-west decided to continue with the closure decision that was taken by Labour. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for Health the ways in which we can keep our pledge on this matter?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend and with the Secretary of State for Health. As he knows, we have introduced far tougher steps before these decisions can be taken, to ensure that local needs, and the views of patients and local GPs, are respected. The whole point about the new system, which is GP-led, is that hospitals will thrive when local people use and value them.
David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Q7. In the past few weeks, the Government have rebranded antisocial behaviour orders as criminal behaviour orders, renamed control orders as terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and rechristened curfews as overnight residence requirements. Does the Prime Minister not realise that no amount of rebranding will disguise the fact that a Government preparing to cut police numbers by 10,000 will be seen as nothing other than weak on antisocial behaviour, reckless on terrorism and soft on crime?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the Labour party is going a long way to rebranding new Labour as old and irresponsible Labour, and I have to say that the project is going very well.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend believe that the quality of the debate on the future of Britain’s debt burden is enhanced by the deficit denial on the Opposition Front Bench?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The Opposition were beginning to understand that they had left us with a debt burden, and beginning to own up to it, but now, with the new shadow Chancellor, they are in complete and utter deficit denial. They have not even taken the first step to being a responsible Opposition.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Q8. Around the country, driving test centres such as those at Arbroath and Forfar in my constituency are being closed without any consultation whatever with the local community or instructors. Surely that is the complete opposite of localism. Will the Prime Minister lean over and instruct his Transport Secretary to put a stop to such closures until there has been at the very least consultation with the local community and consideration of alternative ways to provide the service?
The Prime Minister
I understand the importance of these facilities in rural communities. As I understand it, the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency has said that she will explore further how to continue to offer facilities in these locations. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to contact the hon. Gentleman to discuss this important issue with him.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Last week, there was a memorial service in Gloucester cathedral for Tom Walkinshaw, a constituent of the Prime Minister and a legend in my city for all he did to revive Gloucester rugby. Does the Prime Minister agree that Tom, and many others like him who have invested so much of their own money in our great sports, have done a lot to increase self-belief and pride in our cities?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks very well of someone who lived in my constituency and invested not only in rugby, but in Formula 1, which has been an absolutely world-beating industry for our country. We should celebrate that, particularly in my region, where so many people are employed in this incredibly high-tech endeavour.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Q9. Does not the Prime Minister’s plan to sell off the forests show once again that he knows the price of everything but the value of nothing?
The Prime Minister
Let me say to the hon. Lady and to all hon. Members who I know are very interested in this subject that we are having a consultation; we are listening to people’s views. Let me make a couple of things clear. First, we will not do what happened under the last Government, which was the sale of forests with absolutely no guarantees of access. [Interruption.] Yes, that is exactly what they did. We also have a good opportunity to bust a few myths about this situation. The idea that all Forestry Commission forests are open to the public and do not charge is simply not true. Many forests, such as the New Forest, are not owned by the Forestry Commission and have much better access, no parking charges and very good records on habitat. While we are having this consultation, we should bust some of the myths that have been put around about this idea.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The latest US Department of Defence report to Congress states that the Taliban’s strength lies in the Afghan people’s perception that the Taliban will ultimately be victorious. Is it not now time for fresh thinking on Afghanistan, which must include getting the Americans to open talks with the Taliban, because as we proved in Northern Ireland it is possible to talk and fight at the same time?
The Prime Minister
I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, of course there has to be a political process; almost every insurgency in history has ended through some combination of military might and a political process. I accept that, but where I disagree with my hon. Friend is that I think that this year the Taliban will see that there is no meaningful removal of US forces from Afghanistan. This will be another year in which the Taliban are going to be heavily defeated on the battlefield, which will make a political solution more rather than less likely.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Q10. Why is the Prime Minister cutting benefits and pensions for the armed forces? Does he intend to honour the agreement with our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the armed forces are excluded from John Hutton’s report, which is looking at increasing people’s contributions. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what we have done for the armed forces. We said we would double the operational allowance for people serving in Afghanistan, and we have done that. We said that we would introduce a pupil premium, for the first time, for soldiers’ children who go to our schools, and we have done that. We have said that leave for the armed forces should start when they land back in the UK, not when they leave Afghanistan, and we are doing that. This Government are very pro our armed services and their families, and want to ensure that we give them a good deal.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The whole House will regret the regular reports of tragic knife-crime incidents in this country. Does the Prime Minister agree that anyone who takes to the streets carrying a knife does so with the capability to commit grievous bodily harm or murder? What sort of punishment does he feel that these people should receive?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We must ensure that people who carry knives know that the result of that is likely to be a prison sentence. We must get tougher on what happens in terms of knife crime. Under the last Government, knife crime after knife crime was met with a caution rather than with proper punishment in courts. Labour Members can talk about knife crime as much as they like, but they were as soft as anything on it.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Q11. The provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill were not costed before or after the election. Given the extension of commercial providers, is it the case that the NHS is not safe in the hands of the Government, but that the hands are in the safe of the NHS?
The Prime Minister
On the NHS, I can do no better than quote the shadow Secretary of State for Health. This is what he said about our plans:
“No-one in the House of Commons knows more about the NHS than Andrew Lansley… Andrew Lansley spent six years in Opposition as shadow health secretary. No-one has visited more of the NHS. No-one has talked to more people who work in the NHS than Andrew Lansley… these plans are consistent, coherent and comprehensive. I would expect nothing less from Andrew Lansley.”
That was said by Labour’s shadow Health Secretary. I could not have put it better myself.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
Q12. Last week the Government committed more than £100 million of investment to the M6 Heysham Port road link, promising to bring much-needed new jobs and businesses to my part of Lancashire. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that, despite our economic difficulties, the Government will continue to invest in major capital schemes, particularly in northern areas such as mine, which were much neglected by the last Labour Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have prioritised, in a difficult spending round, spending on capital infrastructure, including the scheme that he mentions. It is important, as we go for growth in our country, that we put capital expenditure into our roads and railways, and things that will help our economy to grow. That is exactly what we are doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and in many other constituencies across the country.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Q13. The Prime Minister insists that the financial crisis was caused by a lack of regulation, but even after the collapse of Northern Rock he complained that the last Government had subjected the banks to excessive bureaucracy and too much regulation. He promised to give them an easier ride, saying,“government needs to do less taxing and regulating”.Is that why donors in the City have given the Tory party so much money?
The Prime Minister
I remember a time when the hon. Gentleman used to write the last Prime Minister’s questions. Given what he has said, I think that the last Prime Minister is writing his questions. The fact is that Labour left us the most indebted households, the most bust banks, and a deficit—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister’s answer will be heard, and with some courtesy. That is what the public want to see. They are sick to death of this sort of behaviour.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me just make one point. The person who was the City Minister when the City blew up is now your shadow Chancellor. Great pick.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Q14. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that Parliament will have the final say on whether prisoners will have the right to vote? In view of the public’s disdain for the unelected bureaucrats in Strasbourg, will he defend our country from any further sanctions from Europe on the issue?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady knows that I have every sympathy with her view. I see no reason why prisoners should have the vote. This is not a situation that I want this country to be in. I am sure that you will all have a very lively debate on Thursday, when the House of Commons will make its views known.
Petition
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I wish to present a petition opposing the proposed withdrawal of the mobility component of disability living allowance from those living in state-funded care homes. The petition is signed by 135 members of Chippenham Gateway club in my constituency, a volunteer-run social club for those with long-term learning difficulties or mental health problems.
The petition states:
The Petition of members, volunteers and supporters of the Chippenham Gateway Club,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the Government’s proposal to stop paying the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance for disabled adults in residential care; and notes their concern that this proposal would have a devastating impact on the Chippenham Gateway Club and similar clubs for members with learning difficulties/mental health issues throughout the UK.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to stop paying the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance for disabled adults in residential care.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000884]
Flood Defence Allocations
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), let me appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so both quickly and quietly so that the question can proceed in a reasonable atmosphere. I ask Members what they would want if they were asking or answering the urgent question.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s flood defence allocations for 2011-12.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
The coalition Government are committed to protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion where it is sustainable and affordable to do so. Today, the Environment Agency is setting out detailed plans for proposed capital investment projects in the 2011-12 financial year. When completed, these schemes will provide better protection to over 112,000 homes in England. As already announced, a total of £521 million will be allocated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Environment Agency next year for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. That will be roughly half revenue funding and half capital investment. The capital funds will take forward 109 schemes which are already under construction, and in addition to these, a further 39 new flood and coastal defence projects will go ahead. Of these, 21 projects will provide better protection to 13,000 households at risk. The remainder relates to repairs and safety enhancements to existing defences.
The list of new schemes includes a £5.7 million project to protect 182 households in Keswick from flooding of the river Derwent. In total, over the next four years DEFRA intends to spend at least £2.1 billion and increase protection for at least 145,000 homes.
Inevitably, it has been necessary to find savings in all areas of Government expenditure, but we have protected flood and coastal erosion risk management as much as possible. The reduction is 8% compared with the previous four-year period. We have protected front-line services such as forecasting, warnings and incident response, and the maintenance of existing defences.
As I have said previously, no schemes will have been cancelled. All defences already under construction—the 109 projects I have mentioned— will be completed. It is the nature of flood and coastal defence investment that there are always more projects than national budgets can afford at any one time. Funding has always needed to be prioritised. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns of people and hon. Members who are worried that a particular scheme is not on the indicative list for funding. I should stress, however, that this does not amount to the Government cancelling schemes or saying any particular scheme cannot go ahead in the future. The method of Government funding for schemes starting in 2012-13 and beyond is currently under review. That follows recommendations made by Sir Michael Pitt after the widespread flooding of 2007. Transparency and greater local involvement are at the heart of the new proposals.
Whatever the amount of funding available, we cannot expect the national taxpayer to completely fund all the costs of each and every scheme; that has been a long-accepted understanding on both sides of the House. Difficult decisions must be made, and we must ensure that public investment delivers the most in terms of outcomes and benefits per pound spent.
Under the new proposals for funding flood and coastal erosion risk management, local ambitions in terms of protection no longer need be constrained by what national budgets can afford. We want to use every £1 wisely and make sure that as many people as possible have the opportunity of benefiting from new or enhanced flood defences. With the funding allocations announced today, 112,000 properties will benefit from improved protection. Going forward, closer working with local communities and more opportunities for outside contributions will mean that more people will ultimately be protected.
Mary Creagh
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I am surprised that the Secretary of State, to whom this question was put, did not deem the House worthy of an answer in person from her.
We know that the Environment Agency board met last Thursday to decide this year’s flood defence allocations, and that the press were invited to a briefing today at noon. We heard from journalists that DEFRA would issue a press release today at noon, but without this urgent question—which you kindly granted, Mr Speaker—Members would have read of the total nationwide flood allocations from the media this evening rather than debating them fully in Parliament today. Can the Minister tell the House why a written ministerial statement on the flood allocations was not even laid in the Library or on the Order Paper today?
Following the comprehensive spending review, Parliament has not had any chance to debate the flood budget for 2011-12, yet this is arguably the part of the DEFRA budget which most affects our constituents. The amount was revealed in a written answer on 20 January this year, which said that the capital funding for flood defences to protect our constituents’ homes has fallen from a baseline figure last year of £354 million to £259 million. Will the Minister confirm that this is a 27% cash cut to the budget, and a 32% real-terms cut when inflation is taken into account, and not the bizarre 8% cut that he insists on briefing in the media?
We know from the Environment Agency’s own figures that,
“On average, every pound invested in improved flood protection…reduces the long term cost of flooding and coastal erosion by £8.”
Has the Minister calculated that this £95 million cut to flood defence spending this year will actually cost the nation more than three quarters of a billion pounds—£760 million—in lost future value? We know that certain schemes have been cancelled, because MPs in those areas have been briefed. The Minister mentioned 39 new schemes going forward, but 59 flood defence projects are due to start over the next four years. How many of those will be completed in the next four years, and what steps is he taking to protect areas affected by these reductions in flood defence spending?
In the past, the Government allocated flood defence money for two or three years, as large construction projects take several years to plan and complete. We have heard from the Minister today about his plans for a flood levy. Again, this is the first time we have debated that on the Floor of the House, but the consultation is on the DEFRA website. Can he reassure the House that any proposals for future flood defence funding are not skewed away from areas of high need and towards areas where people have deeper pockets?
Can the Minister say what conversations he has had with the insurance industry about its consternation at these funding cuts? Labour’s statement of principles guaranteed universal flood insurance coverage for homes in affected areas. It runs out in 2013 and was based on the understanding, following the Pitt review, that Government should have
“above inflation settlements for future spending rounds.”
Is the Minister aware of the comments of Steve Foulsham, technical service manager of the British Insurance Brokers Association, who said in Insurance Professional Magazine in January 2011:
“When the Statement of Principles comes to an end, it will be devastating for consumers”?
Has the Minister had any contact with David Williams, managing director of claims at Axa Commercial Lines, who says,
“Now that spending has been reduced…all bets are off. The Government is in breach of its side of the bargain, so if insurers wanted to stop providing cover, they would probably be able to”?
What contact has the Minister had with the industry to ensure that homes do not become uninsurable, or insurance premiums simply unaffordable? Does he agree with me that if insurance is too expensive, the Government become the insurer of last resort for those who simply cannot afford it?
Finally, may I ask that the Minister place a copy of his statement in the Library of the House, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House can communicate first with their constituents, and not be trumped once again by the newspapers?
Richard Benyon
I am grateful for those questions and I am sure I can reassure the hon. Lady on a number of them. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from a meeting at Water UK. This is an urgent question, she came to the House a short time ago, and I have been available to prepare for it. Secondly, we have a debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall when we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters in detail, and I look forward to that. Thirdly, on the hon. Lady’s question about a written statement, there is nothing different in this method of announcing funding compared with previous years. Last year, there was no written statement. These are indicative budgets put forward by the Environment Agency. Where Ministers were, rightly, held and continue to be held to account was on the overall budget, which was announced in the autumn. There are plenty of opportunities for the hon. Lady—Opposition day debates and other circumstances —to raise this issue and hold Ministers to account. The Environment Agency is publishing its indicative list of schemes that are due to go ahead in the coming year, and that goes to regional flood defence committees for approval. So we are at that stage of the process, and that is no different from previous years, and no written statement was made last year—I checked before I came to the House.
On capital spending, really, the hon. Lady has got to change her tack, because she is not comparing apples with apples; these are two very different circumstances. Rightly, the former Chancellor in the previous Government announced a 50% cut in capital spending. If the hon. Lady were sitting on the Government side of the House, she might—rightly, as we have—favour flood spending and reduce the amount of saving accordingly, as we have done. But she cannot say that as if the spending last year and this year are the same, because they are not; the economic situations are completely different. She knows that and she really needs to change her tune.
The hon. Lady asked about communities with a high deprivation index, where there is a need to protect people on low incomes. I can assure her that the system will be skewed, as it is and always was, in favour of areas where a large number of people are on low incomes; that will remain through the payment-for-outcomes scheme.
On insurance, we are working closely with the Association of British Insurers. The statement of principles was always going to end in 2013, and it is always going to require important and careful negotiation to ensure that we get a scheme that protects people and their homes and so that they can get insurance. A good working party has come out of a flood summit that we held in September, which was attended by a number of hon. Members. The ABI is optimistic that it can find a scheme that will offer the kind of protection that households will need in the future, and I hope that that will be the case.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is considerable interest in this subject, but there are two important statements, and other demanding business, to follow. There is pressure on time, so short questions and short answers are essential.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The House will not be taken in by the crocodile tears of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), whose Government changed the points system in 2005, depriving many towns such as Thirsk of protection from floods. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that any local levy he seeks to raise will not trigger the 2.5% increase that would lead to a local referendum? Will he work with the insurance industry to see whether local resilience measures for houses could be extended to business properties and whether a lower insurance premium could then be attracted?
Richard Benyon
We very much want to gear things towards a system where the benefits can be understood by people. That is why the payment-for-outcomes scheme offers so much potential; it offers clarity, for the first time, where the current system is opaque. It will allow communities such as my hon. Friend’s to see where they are in the pecking order, why they are constantly overtaken as our understanding of flood risk management gets better and where they are missing out. Thus, when people and businesses are benefiting, they may choose to contribute and get their scheme above the line. This approach offers her and her constituents a great opportunity.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Can the Minister please explain how the cuts that he is being forced to confirm to the House today are consistent with a very clear assurance given by the Prime Minister to this House during Prime Minister’s questions on 17 November? He said that flood defence spending would be “protected” and would be “roughly the same” as under Labour.
Richard Benyon
I hope that we will be able to prove at the end of this process that the spending is broadly the same: an 8% cut compared with the previous four years, but with 15% efficiency savings that we think we can get out of the Environment Agency and a greater understanding of how we can deliver. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that what really matters is the outcome: households protected from flooding. I am really confident that at the end of this process we will be able to produce outcomes that are no worse than those in the past and perhaps even better.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Will the Environment Agency continue to work with local organisations and local people on small-scale engineering improvements, which have helped to protect for the future areas such as Glendale and the Ingram valley in Northumberland, as well as considering issues such as those relating to Morpeth?
Richard Benyon
I can guarantee that to my right hon. Friend. I can also tell him that our understanding and the software now available to guide on things such as surface water flooding mean that a small and relatively low-cost building of defences can have an enormous effect in delivering precisely the amount of protection we want. I can assure him that the Environment Agency will continue to work with local people.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
In the north-west London basin, 2,000 people have been subjected to repeated flooding in the Mogden catchment area. That was to be addressed through the sustainable urban drainage scheme and the investigations that were going on into that catchment area. Can the Minister assure me that that scheme will go ahead?
Richard Benyon
I do not want to mislead the House or the hon. Gentleman. If he will meet me, I will be happy to give him exact and firm details about that scheme.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Parts of my constituency were devastated by the floods in 2007. May I thank the Minister, on behalf of the people of Alcester, for allowing the project there to go ahead? May I also, on behalf of the people of Broom, come and see him about an innovative idea that we have had, with the Environment Agency, for mitigating flooding in Broom?
Richard Benyon
I am all for innovation. The carpet in my office is wearing thin from colleagues on both sides of the House coming to see me, but I will certainly meet my hon. Friend. I am keen to hear about new plans and I am happy to involve the Environment Agency, which perhaps has greater technical understanding than I do.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the Pitt review and that the Government have protected incident response. One of the review’s recommendations was to place a statutory duty on fire and rescue authorities. The Government supported that in opposition and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supports it now. Can he give us a time scale for the implementation of that statutory duty?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is the one area of the Pitt review about which we have qualms. I am happy to discuss it because I know that he has a lot of contact with members of the fire service. I am not sure that placing a statutory duty on fire and rescue services will make any difference to the services I have seen. We are really going to be testing them through Exercise Watermark. Some of them tell me that they would like a duty, but quite a lot tell me that it would not make a blind bit of difference to how they operate and how they integrate with other emergency services. However, I have an open mind and I will listen to him.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for meeting my constituents and because the schemes for Felixstowe and Thorpeness are on the national list. That has yet to be confirmed by the regional flood and coastal committee, but I am sure that it will do so. Will he tell us a little more about how the funding will help people who help themselves and how it will protect those in vulnerable households and areas?
Richard Benyon
I have been impressed by innovative schemes in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which we are using as a basis from which to take forward a number of ideas. I can confirm that the central Felixstowe beach management works will proceed under the next year’s budget.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that the cuts will have on my constituents in Hull who were badly flooded in 2007 and who still find the insurance market partly closed?
Richard Benyon
The statement of principles relates only to properties built before 2009, so for a large number of households it already does not apply. That is a major concern. We have debated this issue in the House, and the hon. Lady’s constituents who were flooded in 2007, like mine, have a right to see the road ahead on this issue. Not only are their premiums rising but their excess charges are rising too. Some of my constituents, frankly, have no insurance because they have excess charges of £10,000. She is absolutely right to ask about this issue, which we will take forward in our negotiations with the ABI. The most important thing is that we are talking. There is a lot of agreement and I believe we can find a way forward and find solutions. The insurance industry is in a state of change and we will see more specialist providers coming through this process.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
One of the lessons from the flooding in Cornwall before Christmas was that community flood plans and community flood wardens can make a real difference in protecting people and property. Can the Minister assure me that there is money within the settlement to continue the establishment of such groups in vulnerable areas?
Richard Benyon
We really value those measures and we are impressed with what has been happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere, so we will certainly encourage that. It is not just us doing that: there is also the work of Mary Dhonau and her organisation. They are trying to provide local flood forums with a toolkit they can pick up not only when a disaster happens, as with my hon. Friend’s constituents, but in areas that we know are at risk of flooding, which can be forewarned and better able to cope with flooding in future.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
May I reiterate that Morpeth is in my constituency? I made that point last week, but I think I need to re-emphasise it. Having listened to the Minister’s statement, can he reassure me that the Morpeth flood alleviation scheme, in its entirety, will still take place?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman and I met yesterday and I explained to him the complexities of the scheme, which is not going ahead in the current proposals, but will, I am sure, in future. The scheme requires further work and consideration about areas where it can be provided and give better value for money. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members are chuntering, but if we allow a scheme that does not stack up as well as others to go ahead, other hon. Members will quite rightly come to the House and try to hold me to account by asking, “Why isn’t our scheme going ahead?” That has always been the case for Ministers standing here. It is important to understand that we have to give best value for money. The hon. Gentleman’s scheme is good and I hope that it will go ahead in time.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Given the constraints on the public finances, can my hon. Friend confirm that the criteria for judging the schemes before him include not only the risk but the costs of flooding? In Leeds, which is the second-biggest financial centre in the country, those costs would be £500 million. Do the criteria also include the economic benefits of putting in the flood alleviation scheme? In Leeds, the scheme is supported by all the Leeds MPs because it would attract more development to the city.
Richard Benyon
I am well aware of the concerns of the people of Leeds, which have been well articulated by the Members who represent that city. That scheme is hugely expensive and I do not doubt that it will bring benefits to the city. I am happy to meet Members on both sides of the House to discuss it. We want to work with the local authority and other agencies to find parts of the scheme with which we might proceed sooner than others. It will not go from conception to commissioning in one year because it is such a massive scheme, but we want to bring it forward as quickly as we can. We have to make sure that we have value for taxpayers’ money at the heart of what we are doing so that we can protect as many homes as possible across the country.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am grateful for those words from the Minister, but is he aware that Leeds city centre came within centimetres of being flooded in 2000, according to Environment Agency information, and that it had numerous near misses in 2004, 2007 and 2008? Will the Minister agree to meet Leeds MPs to discuss this? Leeds is the largest city in the north and we cannot allow it to be knocked out by flooding or to be prioritised below households. It is the major economic centre of west Yorkshire.
Richard Benyon
I absolutely understand that. The hon. Gentleman can come to meet me if he wishes to hear more details about this. The scheme will cost £250,000 or thereabouts per household it protects. That is an enormous amount of money and I do not deny its importance, particularly to the people of Leeds, but we have to look at it from the perspective of the whole area. If it can unlock regeneration or benefits to that city there might be opportunities under the new payment-for-outcomes scheme.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
You know, Mr Speaker, that I headed up flood risk management for the Environment Agency Wales between 2005 and 2010, so I appreciate the relationship between climate change and flood risk, which we have seen in New Orleans. What has happened in Queensland, Australia and in England is not a laughing matter. Will Ministers undertake to visit victims and communities who have been devastated by flooding that could have been avoided had the Minister not cut the revised budget for flood defences, which was made after the 2007 floods, and say sorry to them?
Richard Benyon
We have visited places that have been flooded since we came into government. The hon. Gentleman must understand that I have waded through houses reeking of sewage and have looked into the eyes of families whose houses have been flooded. He does not have to tell me about the misery that flooding causes those communities—2,500 households in my constituency were flooded in 2007. We understand how important this issue is and he knows that we cannot protect every house. There are 5.2 million houses at risk.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the record and confirm that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), when he was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ring-fenced flood defences so that in the last round of cuts there was no cut in the funding? That is why this year’s cut is a 27% cut.
Richard Benyon
A 50% cut and ring-fenced funding for the future could not have been defended. That is absolutely impossible. I honestly urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the realities of the situation. There is a 50% capital cut. Whichever party had been in government now would have had to take difficult decisions. We have protected the floods budget as best we can, and he should recognise that.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Has the Environment Agency’s flood defence scheme for Water End and Leeman road in York, which defends more than 300 low-income households, been cancelled? It was due to go ahead this year and was funded to go ahead this year. If it has not been cancelled, when will it go ahead?
Richard Benyon
The scheme has not been cancelled. It has been deferred. There are technical difficulties with it.
Richard Benyon
We will shortly debate the matter in Westminster Hall, when I will be happy to give the hon. Gentleman more details. I can assure him that the scheme has not been cancelled.
Banking
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The near-collapse of the British banking system more than two years ago still generates today deep feelings of anger and cries for retribution. I understand that, for the link between risk and reward that underpins our free market was completely broken.
Bankers who had made the most catastrophic mistakes walked away with huge payouts and pensions. Those entrusted by us to regulate those bankers and run our economy washed their hands. Meanwhile the rest of the country is left paying every day for their failures. The new coalition Government must pick up the pieces. Let me set out how we will do that.
First, we will make sure that this never happens again. We are replacing entirely the tripartite system of regulation that was introduced by a previous Chancellor and his advisers in 1997, and which completely failed. Next week we will publish the detailed proposals to give the Bank of England responsibility for prudential regulation, and to create a new consumer protection and markets authority that will protect the interests of bank customers. We will then undertake pre-legislative scrutiny, as requested by the House, before introducing the Bill. I hope it will command support from both sides.
Later this year we will receive the interim and final reports of the Independent Banking Commission that this Government established, and which I asked Sir John Vickers to chair. Sir John and his fellow commissioners are asking the difficult questions that need to be asked about how we protect the British taxpayer from future bank failures so that never again is a bank too big to fail. We look forward to receiving their recommendations. I should make it very clear that nothing that I will say today about the settlement that we have reached with Britain’s banks, including references to a level playing field, in any way prejudges the outcome of the commission. That includes both the commission’s recommendations and the Government’s response.
The second task facing the Government is to make sure that we get the maximum sustainable tax revenues from the financial sector. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs confirms that the one-off bank payroll tax introduced in the dying months of the previous Government raised £2.3 billion net, but as my predecessor—the Chancellor who introduced the tax—has pointed out, it could not be repeated without massive tax avoidance. I agree with him and we will not repeat the bank payroll tax.
Instead, we have implemented a new and permanent bank levy, and that is why yesterday I announced an increase in that levy so that it raises £2.5 billion this year. This will bring the total raised by the new bank levy to £10 billion over the Parliament, and it means that in each and every year of this Government we will raise more in bank taxes than the previous Government raised in any single year. We have also required all the major banks operating in the UK to comply in spirit and by the letter with the code of practice on taxation. The code was announced with a fanfare by the previous Government, but I discovered that when they left office only two banks had signed up to it. Today all the major banks have signed.
The third task facing the new Government was to reach a new settlement with the banks so that they could contribute to Britain’s economic recovery. Some prominent people in the House were predicting just 24 hours ago that my tax announcement meant that our discussions with the banks on lending were falling apart. The House will be pleased to know that that prediction was completely wrong. This morning the heads of the major British banks—Barclays, RBS, Lloyds and HSBC—reached a new settlement with the Government. I want to thank John Varley, the former chief executive of Barclays, for the huge amount of time and personal commitment that he has given to this project.
The essentials of the new settlement are exactly as I set out last month, and I am today publishing an exchange of letters between John Varley and myself. The banks will lend more money, especially to small business; pay more taxes; pay less bonuses; be more transparent about the bonuses that they do pay; and make a greater contribution to our regional economy and society. In return the Government commit to the success of a strong, resilient, stable and globally competitive financial services sector in which UK banks can compete with the best banks in the world on a level playing field, and in which London is a world centre for finance. That is good for jobs and growth in our country.
Let me go through each part in detail, starting with pay and bonuses. Most of us find the levels of pay in financial services to be completely out of kilter with what the rest of society would regard as fair or reasonable. We are determined to bring responsibility and constraint, and make sure that pay is properly taxed. Four years ago, at the height of the banking boom, the City paid £11.5 billion in banking bonuses, most of which was in cash, most of which could not be recovered when the banks collapsed, and too much of which went untaxed. The new remuneration code introduced last month and the tax avoidance measures that we are taking will change that.
Today I can tell the House that the four major British banks have also agreed that total bonuses for their UK-based staff will be lower than last year and lower than they would have been without today’s settlement. The independent non-executive director who chairs each bank’s remuneration committee will have to confirm personally in writing to the Financial Services Authority that their pay deal conforms with today’s commitments. For the first time, the banks have agreed to seek explicit approval from their board’s remuneration committee for the pay of the 10 highest paid employees in each of their main business units. That did not happen in banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland before the crisis, where the board was ignorant of what was going on.
We have also insisted that the banks be far more transparent about who and how they pay. From this year onwards, the four major banks have committed to disclose the pay details not just of their executive board members, but of the top five highest paid executives not on the board. This will mean that the salary details of at least seven executives at each bank will be published this year. That compares with five individuals in the United States of America and Hong Kong, and only board executives in Germany and Japan. By disclosing individual pay levels the settlement goes further than the Walker report recommended, on which we are seeking international agreement.
We will consult on whether to make it a mandatory requirement from 2012 on all large UK banks to publish the pay of the board plus the eight highest paid senior executive officers. That would mean that Britain had the toughest and most transparent pay regime of any major financial centre in the world.
Let me provide an update on the situation at the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds. The previous Government signed an agreement with RBS that explicitly said that it would in 2010
“enable pay arrangements in line with the market”.
Despite that constraint, which we inherited from the previous Government, United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd, the arm’s length body which manages the Government’s stake in those two banks, has agreed the following: for all staff at RBS and Lloyds, the maximum up-front cash bonuses will be limited to a maximum of £2,000 this year; all executive directors, including the chief executives, have agreed to receive this year’s bonuses entirely in the form of shares; and directors will have to wait until 2013 to convert these shares into cash.
As the Prime Minister made clear last month, the bonuses at RBS and Lloyds will in total be smaller than they were last year under the previous Government and so, crucially, will the compensation ratios be. They will backmarkers in the industry, instead of the front runners that they once were.
Let me turn from pay to the additional support that the British banks have committed today to provide to the regional economy. At the end of last year the industry pledged £1.5 billion to a new business growth fund, which will invest in the kinds of expanding small businesses that hold the key to Britain’s more balanced economic future. Today they commit to make an additional £1.2 billion contribution to society. The four major banks commit to an additional £l billion for the fund and an additional £200 million to capitalise the big society bank. The business growth fund contribution will be front-loaded over the next couple of years, so that more help can be given to businesses sooner. This money will be in addition to the lending commitments and additional to any funding already allocated from dormant bank accounts.
Finally, at the heart of today’s settlement is a commitment from the four major banks, as well as Santander, to make much more money available for lending to small and medium-sized business. Last year these banks lent £66 billion to such businesses. Today the banks commit to lend £76 billion this year. That is £10 billion more gross new lending to small and medium-sized businesses, a massive 15% increase, materially higher than they had been planning to lend this year and materially higher than anyone who has followed these discussions would have expected. It comes alongside a very welcome commitment from the banks greatly to improve their customer service to small businesses, with a free mentoring service, published lending principles, transparent appeals and improved access to trade finance. Overall, gross new lending to all businesses, large and small, will increase from £179 billion to £190 billion, and the banks will make a commitment to lend even more if demand materialises.
Absent this deal, the banks were actually expecting lending to fall this year. To ensure that progress against these lending commitments can be monitored, the Bank of England has agreed to collect the relevant data and publish them quarterly. To help to ensure that today’s agreement is honoured, for the first time the pay of the chief executives of each bank, as well as of the relevant business area leaders, will be linked to their performance against these SME lending targets. Of course, if the banks fail even then to live up to their promises, the Government reserve the right to return to the issue and take further measures, but I sincerely hope that will not be necessary.
The anger at the terrible mistakes of the banking industry and the failure of those who regulated it will long remain, and rightly so, but let us as a country confront this hard truth: anger and retribution will not bring one percentage point of economic growth or create one single new job. The anger will remain, and I understand that, and we must never make the same mistakes again, but Britain needs to move from retribution to recovery. Today we get the banks to commit, with more lending—£10 billion more for small businesses— for our regional economies and society, £10 billion more in bank taxes, lower bonuses and the most transparent pay regime in the world. In return, let us build a banking industry that creates jobs for hundreds of thousands of our citizens and that competes in the world. Above all, let us ensure that the economic catastrophe that befell this country can never be repeated. That is how this new Government will clean up the mistakes of the previous Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that this statement was not on the Order Paper, I thank the Chancellor for the eight minutes’ advance notice he gave me of it. Yesterday, he confirmed in his “Today” programme mini-Budget that he is cutting taxes for the banks this year, compared to last year. [Interruption.] Today we find out what the Chancellor has got in return from the banks, after weeks and months of negotiations with the UK banking industry, culminating in the complete shambles of the past 24 hours, and the result is: precious little. From a Chancellor who talked so tough in opposition and who even yesterday continued to promise much, this is a pitiful outcome and an embarrassing climbdown. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Earlier I made it clear that heckling and abuse of the Prime Minister when he was answering questions should not take place and that his answers would be heard. I say to hon. Members who are now heckling the shadow Chancellor, stop it. It is a disgrace. The public loathe it. Do not imagine for one moment that while screaming abuse you have the slightest prospect of being invited to ask a question. Behave and get the message.
Ed Balls
Thank you, Mr Speaker. They tend to heckle when they are worried.
A “damp squib” is defined in the dictionary as something potentially explosive but that fails to perform because it has got wet. That is this Chancellor all over. This negotiation has turned from Project Merlin into “The Wizard of Oz”: the curtain has been pulled back and there is nothing there. Of the leading players on the Government Front Bench, who is the one without courage, who is the one without a brain and who is the one without a heart?
Let us review what the Chancellor has achieved. On lending, he claims to have secured an agreement with the banks to lend £190 billion this year, but financial experts are clear that the deal he has announced is vague, toothless and unenforceable and not a proper substitute for proper competition. How will he be able to measure in detail whether the deal is delivered? Can he tell us the detail of how it will be enforced? Is there a sanction if the lending does not materialise? Was not a senior banker right when he told the Daily Mail on Monday that this lending agreement is “meaningless”? Is not the Financial Times right to say today:
“With much noisy showmanship, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is puffing demands that are little more than cosmetic”?
Is not that the truth?
On pay transparency, again we have a damp squib. The Chancellor claims that we will now have the most open regime in the world, but what does it actually add up to? The answer is transparency for pay and remuneration of only the seven most senior bank executives, whose anonymity is still fully protected. The Government are demanding that local authorities publish the salaries of anyone in local government earning more than £58,200, but he is allowing a taxpayer-owned bank and publically quoted companies in the financial sector to continue to pay staff millions of pounds in pay and bonuses with no transparency at all.
Why is the Chancellor not activating the legislation that we put on the statute book that would require the publication of the remuneration of any individual paid more than £1 million? It is there on the statute book and ready to go, so why not just sign the order and get on with it? Why has he failed so abjectly to make any progress in international negotiations with European and global Governments on transparency? There has been no progress because there is no sign that he has even tried.
On bonuses, I am afraid that the country will conclude that the Chancellor has thrown in the towel in the face of extensive lobbying by people with whom he and his Conservative colleagues have just become too close and too cosy. Does he remember what the Prime Minister said just two years ago—when Leader of the Opposition—when attacking the previous Government? He said:
“Because of this dithering we could see bonuses paid out for a second year to executives in taxpayer owned banks, which is unacceptable.”
After months of dithering from this Chancellor, what will we see over the next fortnight? We will see exactly that: bonuses running into millions of pounds, in cash and shares, paid to executives in taxpayer-owned banks. What he should be doing today is announcing proper reform of corporate governance and taking up our proposal to repeat last year’s £3.5 billion bank bonus tax, in addition to his levy, and use the money to support jobs and growth to kick-start his stalled recovery.
I have told the Chancellor that I will support him on long-term banking reform, enforceable lending agreements and proper statutory action on transparency and pay. Our economy badly needs a reformed, transformed, vibrant and globally competitive financial services industry for the future. He is right that hundreds of thousands of jobs depend upon it. However, this is not an agreement to secure the long-term future of our economy, but a short-term and shabby political deal. There have been talks that dragged on for weeks, a mini-Budget on the “Today” programme, crisis conference calls with the banks yesterday afternoon, a hasty compromise cooked up overnight and a Chancellor finally coming to the House with little to offer in return for his tax cuts for the banks.
I have to say that this is a Chancellor who, as the former CBI head has said, puts politics before economics. He talked tough in opposition, but in government he looks increasingly out of his depth and out of touch. We have rising VAT, rising fuel prices, rising unemployment and deep spending cuts hitting living standards of families, and yet his first priority is a tax cut for the banks. Millions of families up and down the country will now be asking, whose side is this Government on?
Mr Osborne
Well, that has to be one of the feeblest replies to a statement that I have heard. The only person who seems to be out of his depth at the moment, rather surprisingly, is the shadow Chancellor. There was one thing missing from that rant: an apology. He was the City Minister. I will move on to all the things that we need to do to regulate the City, but I will first remind him that he stood at this Dispatch Box for two years as City Minister and could have done any of the things that were either in my statement or in his reply, but he did not. The truth is that he is man with a past, and we will not let him forget it—even if he does. I took the opportunity to look at his website on which he lists all his achievements in politics, but he does not mention the fact that he was City Minister. He does not mention the fact that he invented the system of City regulation that failed so spectacularly. He might have forgotten what he did not do in government; we will not.
Let me deal specifically with some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asks how the lending targets will be monitored. I told him in the statement that the Bank of England is going to monitor them. [Interruption.] “How are they going to be enforced?”, Opposition Members cry. The chief executive’s pay will be linked to the targets, and I made it very clear in the statement that, of course, if the deal is not met we will return to the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about transparency. In 13 years, the previous Government never implemented transparency in the City of London. Some £11.5 billion of bonuses were paid in the year in which he was the City Minister, but we are introducing the most transparent regime of any major financial centre in the world.
The right hon. Gentleman continues deliberately—because I know he must know the numbers—to get the sums wrong on the bank payroll tax and bank levy. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs confirmed that there is a £2.3 billion net receipt from the bank payroll tax, and that is spelled out in the March 2010 Budget book, which the Labour Government published. We are raising £2.5 billion every year from a bank levy that he opposes— right?—unless he has changed his mind on that. [Interruption.] He now supports it. Well, that is good news.
Perhaps, then, the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) quoted quite a lot from the newspapers in his reply. Well, this is from The Daily Telegraph: “Bankers’ bonus tax failed, admits Alistair Darling,” who said:
“I think it will be a one-off thing because, frankly, the very people you are after here are very good at getting out of these things and...will find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in the future.”
That is from the then Chancellor who actually introduced the tax on which the right hon. Gentleman now pins his entire economic prospects.
Let me end by saying this: the right hon. Gentleman calls for things that he simply did not do in government. On pay and bonuses, he says control them in the nationalised banks; he did not do that last year when he was in the Cabinet, and he did not do it at all when he was in the Treasury. He calls for transparency; he did not introduce it when he was in the Cabinet or in the Treasury. He talks about reforming the banking system; he is the person who designed the banking regulatory system that failed, but he does not admit it. He talks about the bank levy; he wrote 11 Budgets and never put one in. And on lending, he tried as a member of the Government to secure lending agreements throughout the banks, and he completely failed. The truth is this: he is a man running away from his past, with no plan for the future.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Anybody looking reasonably at the settlement will have to agree that it is a welcome step in the right direction. In normal times, Governments should not intervene to force banks to lend or to reveal commercial details of pay, and I very much hope the Chancellor will confirm that it is a one-off, with one exception. Does he not agree that, without further transparency on bonuses, we will never know whether banks are fuelling risks and mistakes for which one day, as a result of the way they misallocate risk, we may have to pay? Will he also support the Treasury Committee’s initiative, outlined in a letter to the Financial Services Authority, and supported by Sir David Walker, to secure that much higher level of transparency?
Mr Osborne
I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for the welcome that he gives to the package. Of course, in any normal times one would not want to have to negotiate lending agreements with the banks or, indeed, be in a situation where half our banking sector was in part in the public’s hands, but that is the situation that we inherited as a Government and why I felt that the agreement with the banks was necessary, as well as the additional tax that we are levying on them.
My hon. Friend specifically raises the issue of transparency and his proposals that I know he has put to the FSA. As I said in my statement, we have a voluntary agreement this year on disclosure, which already goes beyond those of other financial centres in the world, but, having consulted, we will legislate in the coming year, and his proposals will deserve close attention.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor confirm that, as a result of his Herculean efforts in this struggle with the banks, the names of the traders who are still going to be awarded the greatest bonuses will not be made public?
Mr Osborne
The disclosure will be of those senior executives not on the board, but in the Walker proposals there was not even a proposal to identify individual salaries. So it is the senior executives who will be identified.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I welcome what the Chancellor says about the levy, the extra lending, the transparency on bonuses and, in particular, the restraint shown by the two banks that are effectively under state control. On the banks that are not under our control, however, does he agree that, at a time when families throughout the country face difficulties, some banks seem to have lost their moral compass and really ought not to award themselves extravagant bonuses on a level that families could only dream of?
Mr Osborne
I agree with my hon. Friend that the banks should show restraint and an appreciation of the society in which they operate, the challenges that we face with the economy and, indeed, the squeeze on families’ incomes, in part due to the high prices of things such as oil and food. I make this observation: the bonuses this year will be lower than those in the last year of the Labour Government; and, as a result of this agreement, they will also be lower than they would have been, a point that will be confirmed by the independent non-executive director of the individual bank.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Why should anybody believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got the guts to take on the banks, when today it is revealed that he and his friends in the Tory party—those on millionaires’ row—have picked up £44 million from those bankers in the City? Why should we believe all this rubbish?
Mr Osborne
I thought that the hon. Gentleman might ask a question like that, so I did a bit of research and discovered that one of the biggest donors to the shadow Chancellor’s party leadership campaign was a Michael Sanzone, who started off at ABN Amro, moved to RBS and ended up at Lehman Brothers before supporting his campaign. They are probably the four most catastrophic decisions of recent years.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
That gentleman was probably expecting a knighthood and a peerage, like so many of them had in the past. Have we not moved on from excessive bonuses to an emphasis on lending more money to small and medium-sized enterprises? Are we not seeing £10 billion for SMEs and £2.5 billion in total for the new growth fund?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For me, in these discussions the absolute key has been the additional commitment to lend to small and medium-sized businesses. Over the past couple of years, all Members have had people in our constituencies come to us with very difficult stories about the failure of banks to lend to such businesses, and we now have a commitment to increase the lending available by 15%, which is a substantial increase. Alongside that—I did not have time to go into all the detail, but it is being published this afternoon—there will be a new code of practice for the banks to treat their customers much more fairly: for example, they should engage with small businesses a full year before an overdraft comes up for renewal. For me, dealing with that crucial area of the economy—getting credit to small and medium-sized businesses—has been one of the most important parts of the new settlement.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
We now have the big society shrinking before our eyes, and voluntary organisations seeing their budgets cut left, right and centre. At the same time, we still have bankers’ bonuses well beyond most people’s dreams, and on top of that we learn today that the City and organisations in it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) pointed out, have been stuffing money into the Tory party’s coffers. Is this a series of coincidences, or should the public be more suspicious?
Mr Osborne
I just pointed out that a Lehman Brothers executive was one of the biggest donors to the shadow Chancellor’s campaign, and I think the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) shouted at that point, “Well, I didn’t vote for him.” [Interruption.] He repeats it; in fact, he probably did not vote for the Labour party leader, because as far as I can tell virtually no Labour MP did. That brings me to this point: the key thing about the Labour party and its fundraising is that it gets money from the trade unions and changes policy as a result.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
On behalf of the small businesses and voluntary sector in my constituency, may I thank the Chancellor for his announcements about the business growth fund and the big society bank? Is not the reason why the shadow Chancellor’s statement was so empty that the Opposition realise that they did nothing so constructive during their 13 years in government?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes the very good point that we need to see more support for small and medium-sized businesses in our constituencies and in our economy. The regional business fund that I talked about, to which the banks have today made a commitment of an additional £1 billion, is very important because it addresses one of the weaknesses in the British economy—the absence of support, particularly equity support, for small, expanding businesses. I think that this will make a significant contribution to that.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement and for the early advance sight of it. I agree with what he said about the public’s response to the high levels of pay, which are not fair and reasonable and are not seen to be so. I welcome the very low cash bonuses for RBS and Lloyds staff and the decision for executive bonuses to be paid in shares only. May I suggest that that should rolled out to every bank every year as a matter of course? On the new bank lending, will he confirm that it will really be new, that it will go to the businesses that need it most, and that we will not be locked into excessive fees and charges?
Mr Osborne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he has given to important parts of this package. I understand how important the banking industry is to Scotland, where many thousands of people are employed in it, and the impact that the failure of RBS and HBOS had in Scotland. On his specific point about bonuses, the new code of practice that came in last month forces all banks to pay a much greater proportion of their bonuses in shares and in deferred packages. Of course, none of this existed when Labour was regulating the City. As I have said, I would urge the banks to show restraint and reflect the fact that they are operating in a society with economic challenges brought about by the deepest recession and the biggest banking crisis of our lifetimes.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Let me tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that my constituents and I can only dream of living in the £1.6 million house that his party leader lives in.
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement on lending to small businesses and curbing banking bonuses. However, with Lloyds TSB closing its last remaining branch in Meltham and Barclays closing its branch in Milnsbridge, when he next meets the banking bosses will he please stress the importance of community banking and the fact that not all constituents have access to internet banking?
Mr Osborne
When I next talk to the banking chiefs, I will certainly communicate to them, or my office will do so, the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises about the two banks in his constituency. One of the challenges we have at the moment is that RBS and Lloyds are trying to de-lever because of the enormous mess they got into under the previous Government. More generally, he makes a very good point about the importance of community banking. The four banks that have reached this settlement today are committed to extending that and thereby, to a degree, rolling back what happened in recent years. There are also those who want to enter the banking sector. Of course, they have to comply with the FSA requirements, but I know that some of them are offering a return to the kind of community banking that he talked about.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
The Chancellor compares the funding given to the Labour party by trade unionists with the 50% of donations to his party from the City, but I remind him that it was the bankers who caused this crisis, not millions of hard-working trade unionists.
An FSA report found that RBS had 1.1 million customer complaints, more than 50% of which were not dealt with appropriately, resulting in a £2.8 million fine. Does the Chancellor think it is right to reward failure with lavish bonuses, whether in cash or in shares?
Mr Osborne
It was the last Labour Government who were responsible for the economic mess that we got ourselves into, and the sooner Labour Members face up to that, the better. One example of that was the arrangements put in place regarding RBS, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is the contract that we inherited from Labour; this is what the then Ministers who now sit on the shadow Front Bench signed up to: they explicitly told RBS that from 2010 it should pay in line with the market rate. We have now got it to be at the back of the market, not the front.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Like other Members, I welcome the move on lending to small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce and independent businesses have been arguing for some time that good businesses that are viable but have cash-flow problems have been struggling as a result of the policy of the banks under the previous Government. Given that this new move will allow those businesses to survive, and indeed grow, to the benefit of the economy, does the Chancellor agree that it is somewhat surprising, if not disappointing, that the shadow Chancellor and Labour Members have not welcomed it?
Mr Osborne
It is surprising. I noticed that in the shadow Chancellor’s rather extraordinary response there was no mention of lending. Indeed, I am not even sure what the Labour party’s plan is to get the banks to lend more and whether Labour Members welcome this move or not. I know for a fact that the previous Labour Government tried to negotiate a cross-bank agreement on gross lending, and failed. One would have thought, therefore, that they would welcome this, but they have not done so. My hon. Friend makes the good point that the key is to get lending to small businesses going, which is where the market failure has been over the past couple of years. That is absolutely crucial to our economic recovery.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
Now that the Chancellor is into transparency on salaries, can he, as the largest shareholder in RBS, the bailed-out bank, tell the House whether it is true, as the Financial Times has suggested, that 100 bankers are earning more than £1 million? If not, how many are?
Mr Osborne
The transparency arrangements are the ones that I have set out, and the arrangements for managing RBS are the ones put in place by the Government of whom he was a Whip.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Many hard-working families and people in my constituency will welcome today’s announcements. Does the Chancellor agree that the banks have a moral responsibility to invest in areas such as the west midlands and the black country, where we need the private sector jobs growth that is vital for the future?
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is a preponderance of small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses in the west midlands and the black country, as I know from my various visits there. These are precisely the sort of firms that we need to help and assist, and this agreement means that more lending will be available to them. As I say, there is also a commitment to a regional business support fund that will provide equity investment to help those small and medium-sized firms to become bigger firms, which is what the British economy needs so that we do not, as we did in the past 10 years, depend on one sector, in one corner of the country, for our economic growth.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Is the Chancellor confident enough to predict that as a consequence of this package there will be more small businesses on the high streets of Retford, Worksop and Harworth at the end of this year?
Mr Osborne
I am confident about saying that the situation for small and medium-sized businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere will improve. The situation is not going to be transformed overnight—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and others seem to have complete amnesia about the fact that Labour presided over the biggest banking crisis and the deepest recession since the 1930s. Labour Members got elected on the slogan crafted by the shadow Chancellor, “No more boom and bust”, and then gave us the biggest boom and the biggest bust, and we are recovering the economy from the mess that they left.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is clearly a great deal of interest. May I gently remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the statement began should not expect to be called? The position on this is very clear and long established, and it must be adhered to.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“If the City is doing well, the country is doing well. When it prospers, we all prosper”.
They are not my words but those of the shadow Chancellor. Did my right hon. Friend take any advice from him?
Mr Osborne
No, instead I learned from the example of all the things that went wrong when the shadow Chancellor was City Minister. As one does on these occasions, I came into the Chamber armed with many of his quotes about what a golden legacy he was leaving in the City, how bonuses were at the appropriate level, and how he was going to resist all calls in Parliament to toughen up regulation. It would take a couple of hours to read them all out, but no doubt over the next few years we will have plenty of opportunities to remind him that he is a man with a past.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I understand that the business growth fund will have a network of regional offices throughout the UK. Will there be such an office in Northern Ireland to work with the banking sector, the business community and the Northern Ireland Executive?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I will ensure that there will be a presence in Northern Ireland. We are seeking to ensure that there is co-ordination between the business growth fund and the Government’s regional fund. As I have said on many occasions to Members from Northern Ireland, we are acutely aware of the challenges in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has produced a paper on how we might revive the Northern Ireland economy, which is now with the devolved Government. I am taking a close personal interest in that and I hope shortly to come forward, with my right hon. Friend, with some concrete proposals.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the announcement on the increase in funding for the business growth fund and the new lending agreements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those steps will help to establish a new generation of wealth creators, which is an urgent priority in regions such as the north-west, where private sector growth has to be the focus?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right, which is good as he is my local MP. One of the weaknesses in the British economy over recent years has been that small and medium-sized businesses have not had access to venture capital and other sources of funding, as they have had in countries such as the United States and Germany, so that they can become larger companies. The regional business growth fund that I have spoken about will provide more access to such funding. I will also return to this issue in the Budget.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I believe that I was the first MP to raise the issue of bankers’ bonuses in this House five years ago, and I was critical of the previous Government. I say to the Chancellor directly that referring pay to remuneration committees, which is a largely toothless and ineffective rubber-stamping exercise, and allowing bankers at RBS to convert their shares into cash bonuses within two years will not assuage the anger of the British people.
Mr Osborne
First, I respect the hon. Gentleman’s consistency on this issue. Secondly, I said explicitly that I did not think that the anger would disappear any time soon; memories will be long of what has gone wrong in recent years. It will help that bank boards will at least be aware of the some of the salaries that are being paid in their organisations, which they simply were not under the previous regime. That is one thing that clearly went wrong at the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
A man named Tom Bell set up a charity in my constituency to improve the quality of life for tens of thousands of disabled and disadvantaged kids. He was awarded the OBE for his efforts. In assessing the rewards given to bankers, what does the Chancellor make of the five peerages, eight knighthoods, seven CBEs, four OBEs and four MBEs that were given to bankers by the Labour Government?
Mr Osborne
The statistics speak for themselves. Of course, the shadow Chancellor used to be the chief economic adviser and, given that almost everything at the Treasury was signed off by him, he presumably signed off the knighthood for Sir Fred Goodwin. Perhaps in one of our future encounters we will hear the truth about that.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Some £125 billion was put into the banks by the last Labour Government to bail them out in the crisis. Will the Chancellor tell us when the taxpayer will get that money back?
Mr Osborne
Unfortunately, if we sold those shares today, we would lose money as a country. Of course we want to return those banks to the private sector. That is clearly an objective of this Government, and I suspect that it will be an important issue in this Chamber during this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point: a huge sum of money was put in to bail out the banks and no conditions were attached. With all the things that I have talked about today and all the things that the shadow Chancellor asked about, such as pay and transparency, when the previous Government had the leverage, they did not use it. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that inheritance.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Yesterday, before the Public Accounts Committee, Treasury civil servants explained that the previous Government had the opportunity to seek to put constraints on this year’s bonuses at the partly state-owned banks, but that they chose not to. Is the Chancellor disappointed by that?
Mr Osborne
I am not only disappointed by it; it has been a constraint in what we have been dealing with. It is very explicit—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says this is rubbish, but that was the agreement that he and his colleagues signed up to. That is the problem on this issue, and I think that that is beginning to dawn on them. They have a past—they have a record. It is a record of letting the City get away with murder, and of the rest of us having to pick up the pieces.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Following the statement on bankers’ bonuses, how would the Chancellor respond to the one in ten of my constituents who are unemployed and looking for work; the many low-paid workers who face real reductions in their living standards over the next few years; and the many public sector workers who face the possibility of redundancy? Please do not respond by saying, “We’re all in this together.”
Mr Osborne
To repeat what I said in my statement, I completely understand the anger and resentment felt by the many people who have lost their job or faced their income being squeezed because of the mess that was created in the British economy by the banking system and those who were regulating it. That is the situation we are dealing with. My priority today has been to put the economic recovery first and to ensure that we get banks to lend to small and medium-sized businesses, so that they can take on the people the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Small and medium-sized businesses are the engine of job creation in the British economy and they are crucial to our revival. It is also crucial that we rebalance the economy so that we are not as dependent as we were on the success of the financial services sector.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on securing the banks’ commitment to increased lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. However, the banks’ aggressive treatment of SMEs, many of which are almost being bullied into accepting new lending terms, fees and charges, is still an issue that is damaging the potential for growth in our economy. Has the Chancellor discussed that issue with the banks during this process, and what do the banks intend to do about it?
Mr Osborne
I assure my hon. Friend that that issue has been at the heart of the discussions. As I have said, that is why we have put such an emphasis on getting a commitment to increased lending to small and medium-sized businesses. There will be a new code for banks, under which they will have to treat their customers much more fairly, be more reasonable and transparent about the terms that they offer, and engage with customers long before overdrafts and the like need to be renewed.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the Chancellor for the reassurance he gave to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). As he knows, Northern Ireland has a very discrete banking sector, which has been heavily affected by the Irish banking crisis, as well as by the UK banking crisis. Will he ensure that businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland benefit from the announcement he has made today with regard to both lending and regulation?
Mr Osborne
As I said to the hon. Lady’s colleague from Northern Ireland, I am paying particular attention to the Northern Ireland economy, partly because of what has happened in the Republic of Ireland. I am also paying particular attention to the Northern Ireland banking system, because there is the potential for a knock-on effect from what has happened in southern Ireland. As I said, I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what we can do to stimulate growth in Northern Ireland. Finally, despite their questions, I welcome the support I have received from some Opposition parties in the House. That reflects on the fact that although the statement does not contain everything that people want, it is a positive step forward. It also shows how opportunistic the opposition of the former Labour Government is.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Does the Chancellor welcome, as I do, the assessment of the Centre for Economics and Business Research that for the first time ever, bankers will pay more in tax than they take home from their bonuses?
Mr Osborne
I do welcome that research. We need to ensure that we get the tax revenues up. We have introduced the permanent bank levy, which was opposed by the Labour party. We have forced the banks to sign up to the code of practice, which Labour announced in a fanfare from this Dispatch Box, but managed to get only two banks to sign up to—we have got all the banks to sign up. We are looking at the tax avoidance measures that have been used, such as disguised remuneration, which the previous Government had 13 years to address, but failed to do.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Not every worker in a bank is on a multi-million pound salary. Clerical, back office and counter staff frequently earn well under £20,000 a year. Is the Chancellor confident that these measures will begin to reduce pay inequality in the banking sector, and will he have discussions with senior bankers about worker representation on remuneration committees?
Mr Osborne
I am certainly happy to raise the issue about representation that the hon. Lady mentions, but—[Interruption.] These people seem to forget that they were running the country for 13 years and had every chance to do the things that they complain about now, and they completely failed.
To return to what the hon. Lady said, I will raise the specific issue of the representation of workers within the banks. As I have said, most people, including myself, find some of the levels of pay in the financial services sector extraordinary. We are seeking to start to constrain them, although we obviously have greater control over the semi-nationalised banks. I hope that we are also ensuring that we get the tax revenues required to help pay off the nation’s credit card, the budget deficit.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Like many hon. Members, I welcome the Chancellor’s getting greater lending from the banks for small businesses, but can he assure us that there is proper competition within the banking sector, so that money is lent at competitive rates? That is one of the problems that businesses in my constituency are having: they cannot get the money at the proper rate.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right that competition in the banking industry is very important. In the past two or three years we have seen a massive consolidation of the banking industry, with many of the building societies being folded into the larger banks. HBOS disappeared, for understandable reasons, Northern Rock had to be nationalised and so on. One of the remits of the Vickers commission, the Independent Commission on Banking, is to examine competition in the sector, and of course John Vickers himself has personal experience of competition issues. That was one reason why I asked him to take up the post. The commission is examining the specific issue that my hon. Friend raises.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
On the Chancellor’s aspiration to have an extra £10 billion lent by the banks to UK SMEs, may I ask him how that figure was arrived at? Is it what he considers is lacking in the economy, or is it all he could prise from his friends? Is it gross or net?
Mr Osborne
The number is gross, like the lending targets agreed by the previous Government for the nationalised banks, but this is, of course, an agreement across the banking sector. The number was part of the hard negotiations that we had in order to get the amount up. The banks were anticipating reducing lending in the British economy over the coming year, and we have reversed that and got a 15% increase in small and medium-sized business lending.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
In the light of his statement and what he has heard from the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend give any further consideration to the warning offered by a certain soi-disant financial journalist who said that nothing must be done to endanger a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I must just say to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that I do not know what he has for breakfast, but I think I am going to avoid it.
Mr Osborne
I must say that it is a slightly depressing thought that the appointment of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd as shadow Parliamentary Private Secretary means that this will be a constant feature of the encounters in the House between me and the shadow Chancellor, but there we go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) makes a very good point. There are, of course, legions of quotes from former Labour Ministers including the shadow Chancellor about the light-touch regime, how they were resisting calls in Parliament to strengthen it and all of that. Quite a few of them, of course, have gone off to work in the banking sector since leaving Parliament.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the Chancellor not accept that he may be overselling as transparency something that is really just temporary and limited translucency on bonuses, credit and lending to business? What guarantees are there that the Bank of England will not just report on the aggregate of the money available but will examine the prices and conditions involved? Will he also guarantee that if businesses are relieved by credit granted, they will not be floored by tax demanded?
Mr Osborne
First, on transparency, at the moment we have a voluntary commitment by the largest British banks, and we are going to turn that into a legislative requirement on all the major banks operating in the UK. We will bring forward proposals over the coming year to consult on that, as we have to do under the statutory procedures, but my intention has been made clear.
Bank charges and so on are properly not a responsibility of the Bank of England at the moment. It is going to focus on collecting the numbers. However, we are creating a strong consumer protection and markets authority—there will be legislation before the House on that, and a very good chief executive-designate has been hired. He will ensure that the customer gets a fair deal as well.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chancellor put a cap on the value of the shares that bank executives give themselves as bonuses, or will shares now be seen as a Trojan horse for bankers to give themselves still greater bonuses in future?
Mr Osborne
As I have explained, bonuses are actually going to be lower this year than they were in the last year of the Labour Government, who had an opportunity to do something about them.
Yes, bonuses will increasingly be paid in shares, and for a very good reason—so that when the bank goes bust, people will not walk away with a huge payment. We remember not just Fred Goodwin’s knighthood but the pension that the Labour party awarded him. It was completely unable to deal with the fact that the bankers in the banks that went bust walked away with their money. One of the reasons for paying bonuses in shares, and why we have introduced the code, is so that the bankers, too, will pay a price if the bank in which they are involved fails.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The education maintenance allowance costs £580 million a year, a fraction of the cash that the Chancellor could be raising from the banks. Why is he taking more money from young people’s EMA and other things affecting their lives than he is taking from the banks?
Mr Osborne
First, we are taking £2.5 billion from the banks each year, which is more in each year than in any of the Labour Government’s 13 years. Of course, the context of all this is the enormous budget deficit. It is worth reminding Opposition Members that in eight weeks’ time, the Darling plan would have started to take effect—the halving of the budget deficit in four years, which they kept repeating in the election and which the shadow Chancellor was apparently forced to sign up to. In eight weeks’ time the big cuts would have come, which would have been £2 billion less than the cuts being undertaken by the coalition Government. We have eight weeks to hear Labour’s plan for where the cuts would fall.
Trade and Investment for Growth White Paper
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Today I turn to one of the main building blocks of economic recovery—achieving growth through international trade and by attracting inward investment. Britain makes up just 4% of the global economy, and without aligning ourselves to faster growth elsewhere, we cannot hope to prosper. But to do that, we have to do better than in the past. In the past few decades, we have consumed too much and exported too little. While our competitors were sending manufactures across the globe, we were building a property bubble. Now, with Germany exporting more than three times as much as the UK, it is vital to turn the situation round.
We have done better in attracting inward investment. We are one of the top three recipients of foreign investment in the world, and we are home to more European headquarters of overseas companies than all other European countries put together. Inward investors provide not just jobs but 30% of our research and development, but there is no room for complacency in an environment that is increasingly competitive.
The trade and investment for growth White Paper therefore sets out a strategy for creating opportunities, providing the conditions for the private sector growth through trade and investment that will help to rebalance our economy, and securing the benefits of trade and investment openness for the world’s poorest people.
The Government want to focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which are much less engaged in trade than bigger companies. They have told us that they want to take advantage of the opportunities that exist especially in emerging markets but cannot always access the trade credit insurance or finance needed to take the risk. They have also told us that since the economic crisis, they feel that it has become much harder to get cover from private credit insurers at reasonable rates. The Government will therefore create several new schemes and extend one existing scheme, which will be launched in the coming months.
First, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will launch an export enterprise finance guarantee scheme offering export finance valued at up to £1 million for SMEs. The Export Credits Guarantee Department will launch several schemes, including: an export working capital scheme for those who are ineligible for the EEFG scheme, offering export finance of more than £1 million; a bond support scheme under which the Government will share risk with lending banks on the issue of contract bonds; and a foreign exchange credit support scheme, which will support banks offering foreign exchange hedging contracts to SMEs by sharing credit risk. The ECGD will also extend its short-term credit insurance scheme to cover a broader range of exporters, including SMEs. In addition, UK Trade & Investment will increase its focus on emerging markets and on helping SMEs, and launch a new online service offering access to sales leads around the world.
All Ministers have been asked to support our trade diplomacy. I have led, or supported the Prime Minister in, high-level delegations to Brazil, India, China and Russia with business representatives, promoting exports and seeking inward investment. We will be doing more of the same this year and beyond.
However, half our exports are to the EU, and consequently we have a strong interest in ensuring that the EU grows. That makes the completion of the European single market even more vital. Recent analysis suggests that trade between the UK and other EU member states could be as much as 45% below potential, largely because of significant non-tariff barriers. Completion of the single market could translate into 7% additional income per head per UK household. We therefore strongly support efforts to remove barriers to trade, particularly for SMEs, in fields such as e-commerce and low-carbon products, and in professional and business services, for which there are currently an estimated 3,000 regulatory requirements. We will also press for energy and agriculture liberalisation.
At the international level, completing the Doha round is one of our top objectives. Finishing those trade negotiations could deliver a £110 billion boost per year to the global economy. We have spent 10 years negotiating and now need urgent action to agree the key elements of the Doha deal this year, so I am glad that momentum towards a deal seems to be building again. Britain will do its utmost to get the World Trade Organisation past the finishing line this year. Doha is the top priority, but we will also pursue an ambitious programme of EU free trade agreements with our main trading partners, including India, Canada, Singapore and the south American Mercosur countries and, I hope, with Japan following the recent agreement with South Korea.
Finally, the UK is committed to assisting poor countries to take advantage of the opportunities presented by an open global trading system. International trade is one of the most important tools in the fight against poverty and research evidence shows that per capita incomes grow three times faster in countries without trade barriers than in other developing countries. We will therefore ensure that trade is a central theme across our bilateral aid programme, and promote regional integration, notably in Africa through our Africa free trade initiative. Helping the developing world in that way is the right thing to do on moral grounds, and it is in Britain’s economic national interest.
This White Paper sets out an ambitious direction for the UK and will guide the Government’s work on trade and investment. We will implement it vigorously and actively, and I urge British business to seize the opportunities that it will present. In that way, we will all benefit from the vision it sets out: an open trading system and a competitive British economy, driving jobs and growth.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for sending me a copy of the White Paper earlier today and for notice of his statement. I welcome the broad thrust of the statement so far as it goes, but may I remind him that exports alone will not deliver without a credible plan for growth across our economy? Putting new tyres on the car will not make it perform better if the engine has not been fixed.
We welcome the importance given to exports and export support, and support the increased focus on the major emerging markets such as Brazil, China and India, without neglecting our longer-established markets. We also welcome the commitment to opposing protectionism and promoting free trade. Subject to the detail, we will support the particular measures that the Secretary of State proposes to develop export support for SMEs, although I hope he can give us a timetable for their implementation. I hope the Secretary of State acknowledges that all those measures build on work done by the previous Labour Government.
Like the previous Government, this Government are committed to the completion of the Doha round of global free trade talks. Given the difficulties that those talks have had in the past, can the Secretary of State tell the House what specific new initiatives he will take in the coming year to ensure that talks are completed successfully? His predecessor and my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister played an active and engaged role in trying to move the WTO towards agreement. What personal role has the Secretary of State played and what commitment has he gained from the Prime Minister about his personal involvement in securing an agreement this year?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the Doha round must foster development, and will he respect and build on the work of his Department and the Department for International Development under the previous Government to ensure that trade agreements support poorer, developing countries?
The White Paper recognises the potential benefits of completing European free trade agreements. What specific new initiatives will the Secretary of State take within the Council of Ministers to get things moving forward? Finally on Europe, what specific measures will he take to broaden and deepen the single market, as the White Paper puts it?
There appear to be some significant problems underlying the White Paper. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the cap of £25 million does not create a gap in export support for mid-range companies? Will he confirm that the UKTI budget will be cut by 19.5% in real terms? Given the expansion of activities in the White Paper, where and how will cuts be made without damaging support for exporters? What role will the science and innovation network play in supporting the export strategy?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that a successful export drive depends fundamentally on having goods and services to sell, and on having the companies that can provide and sell those goods and services? Does he therefore also recognise that the Government’s reckless approach to deficit reduction is damaging the prospects for growth and jobs? Can he tell the House why the strategy for growth has still not been published when he promised it in October? Does he acknowledge that the new director-general of the CBI has now joined the previous director-general in criticising the Government for having no plan for growth? Without a clear vision for the economy and a plan for growth, we will not have enough companies to export or the products to sell.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that pharmaceuticals and the life sciences are one of the knowledge-based industries by which we can hope to earn our way in the world? Last week, Pfizer announced the closure of its Sandwich plant. Is it not a chilling message that one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies looked at its global activities and decided that it no longer needed to be in the UK, and that it could afford to the leave the UK outside its global research strategy? How much more investment will we lose before this complacent Government produce a credible plan for growth?
The White Paper says that the Government will invest in UK infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the introduction of universal broadband has been delayed by three years, and that there is no credible plan for fast broadband? Does he accept that those failings make the UK a less attractive place for investment by companies that support the digital economy?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that a recent report by Experian and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts concluded that there are companies with the potential to grow and export in every region of the country and in many different sectors of the economy? Does he recognise that regional development agencies often worked with UKTI to support exporters? He has abolished RDAs, but can he explain why the White Paper contains only one passing mention of regional support for exporters and support for exporters in the regions? How will he ensure that potential exporters get the right support in every part of the country?
The White Paper praises higher education as a gross export earner of £5.3 billion, so why has the Secretary of State supported changes to student visa policies that will do real harm to the country’s seventh biggest export earner and undermine our long-term trade and development interests? The White Paper speaks of investing in science, but does the Secretary of State recognise that with science investment cut in real terms and other countries increasing their science investment, we are in danger of losing world leadership in this area?
I welcome the recent performance of manufacturing exports, which have taken advantage of a competitive pound. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the strength of the manufacturing sector has been supported by the previous Government’s support for science, research and development tax credits and capital allowances, and that—in the worst of the global recession—the scrappage scheme, time to pay and flexible tax credits all helped manufacturers to retain more of their work force? Does he recognise that we now have a unique opportunity to use manufacturing exports to strengthen the supply chain companies and develop the next generation of world-beating export products? What is he doing to ensure that we take advantage of that opportunity?
There is much common sense and continuity in the White Paper and no need for artificial arguments about it, but the Secretary of State must recognise that its impact will be limited without a credible plan for growth.
Vince Cable
First, may I respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s positive comments? He is right that, compared with, say, the United States or France, there is a significant degree of consensus about trade policy. Probably one of the best statements on the relationship between trade and globalisation was set out by Clare Short, a few years ago when she was Secretary of State. There is a lot of common ground.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Pfizer. As it happens, I chaired the task force this morning, which—with the leader of Kent county council and the Minister for Universities and Science—is seeking actively to try to save as many jobs as we can on that site and to mobilise other pharmaceutical companies. Its work is coming along well, but these are early days.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what I have been doing in relation to international trade initiatives. In each of the major BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India and China—countries that I have visited, I have engaged with the Trade Ministers, especially the key ones in India and China, which are critical to the success of the Doha round, and tried to persuade them of the importance of making good offers. We have had useful discussions about that. I have had several meetings with Mr Barnier about how we can progress the single market, and only a week ago I was in extensive discussions with my opposite number from India about the European Union free trade agreement. These are works in progress, but progress is undoubtedly being made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about some of the concrete measures on trade promotion and resources. He appreciates that export credit guarantees are underwriting bank lending—they are not a cash contribution and there is no resource implication. He asked about timetables, and these schemes will be introduced in the next two to three months on a pilot basis. They are, in fact, imminent.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the fact that there is some reduction in the UKTI budget, but he should recall that, under the RDA system that he extols, there was a ludicrous duplication of resources. We had British trade ambassadors from each of the RDAs posted in overseas countries, competing with each other and wasting resources. We will get more from less when it comes to trade promotion.
On the wider issue of the state of the economy, we earlier had an extraordinary display of amnesia from the shadow Chancellor, who forgot his role in the last Government. The shadow Secretary of State now tells us about the decline in manufacturing. He may have forgotten the debate last week when we had to point out to him that the decline in the manufacturing sector in the UK economy from 20% to 12% of GDP was far in excess of any other developed country, and that is the rebalancing problem that we are now trying to address. Of course, trade by itself will not solve the problem—it is 30% of GDP—but it is important, especially for some areas such as the north-east of England. Rebalancing is about manufacturing, exports and private sector investment.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Now that the Secretary of State has been in situ for some time, does he recognise—as we on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee recognise—that UKTI is a bureaucrat’s vision, not a business man’s vision, evaluates itself on process and not on outcomes, and has a variable performance dependent on the quality of personnel in post? Does he also recognise that not one trade ambassador comes from the entertainment or music industry, which are among the major earners for Britain in the world at large? Will he have a root and branch review of UKTI, using business input, to ensure those outcomes?
Vince Cable
The business people whom I meet—and I meet a great many—frequently make a positive assessment of the support that UKTI gives them. There are some criticisms, but not many. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s final point, he will know that Lord Green is now the Trade Minister. He has a business background and is applying precisely the disciplines that the hon. Gentleman feels—and I agree with him—are necessary.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Nothing is more important than creating jobs in the part of north Staffordshire that I represent. Because so many jobs are at risk because of public sector cuts in that area, the statement that the Secretary of State has just made is perhaps the most important statement that we will receive from this Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman work with us to ensure that that trade diplomacy that he mentioned will embrace making the case for investment at every level, including in the new environmental technologies, and the support needed for SMEs? The chamber of commerce in north Staffordshire tells me that the business initiative does not have the funding that it needs.
Vince Cable
The hon. Lady is right to say that trade is crucial in her part of the country, and I have had discussions with her and her neighbours about the ceramics industry, which is clearly one of our success stories, and we should promote it. I also met the chairman of her local enterprise partnership, who was a good deal more sanguine about its prospects than she is.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I warmly welcome this statement, particularly the measures for SMEs. The previous Government were very good at helping with weapons and the aerospace industry, but this is one sector that really needed some help. What can my right hon. Friend do to publicise the scheme to ensure that all SMEs that are thinking of exporting can benefit fully from the measures that we are taking today?
Vince Cable
I would not completely deprecate efforts to promote the aerospace industry—I am doing the same—but my hon. Friend is right to say that the key message of the statement is about SMEs. Compared with countries such as Germany, the number of our small businesses that export is relatively small, and we have to publicise that help through bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce, as well as through our website. We will be active in doing that.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
As Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, I wish to make it clear that previous reports from the Committee are slightly less critical of UKTI than may have been suggested by a Member earlier. I broadly welcome the thrust of the White Paper, especially in connection with export credit finance, which is obviously of crucial importance. It is good that that is being seen to be addressed. The White Paper and the Secretary of State both refer to the potential for further trade with the EU, and the removal of non-tariff barriers will have the potential to boost this country’s export income. Can the Secretary of State be more specific about what policies he will pursue in that area and give us assurances that those will have the support of the European Scrutiny Committee?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Can we have very short questions? There are many Members who wish to contribute, and I want to try to fit everyone in.
Vince Cable
As far as the single market is concerned, I meet Mr Barnier regularly, and there is now a real momentum behind trying to implement the Monti report, which sets out how the single market can be deepened. There are key areas where Britain can do well—such as low-carbon products and services in general, where there are enormous obstacles to trade—and we will focus on those.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend, on behalf of small and medium-sized enterprises in Stratford-on-Avon, for the White Paper? His focus on exports and tackling some of the problems with the ECGD is absolutely right. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that export finance through banks is under threat from gold-plating by the Financial Services Authority and parts of Basel III. Such finance is a safe way of financing exports for our SMEs, and indeed all our businesses. The failure rate is 0.002%, yet it is in danger of being put in the same bracket as long-term finance, which would act as a disincentive for banks to fund export finance.
Vince Cable
As far as the ECGD is concerned, one of the things that we discovered when we investigated this matter is that Britain is far behind countries such as France—which has COFACE and other such agencies—in providing trade finance. That is the gap—the market failure—that we are trying to fill. I hear my hon. Friend’s point about banks in general—a point that the Chancellor dealt with a few moments ago. There is clearly an issue about the extent to which the FSA has overreacted in its interpretation of international rules.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will welcome measures to help small and medium-sized businesses to export more, but how are small businesses helped to export by the abolition of the grants for business investment scheme? The figures from the Secretary of State’s own Department show that this money produced £10 of private sector investment for every £1 of public money spent. The money was directed overwhelmingly at small and medium-sized businesses, and overwhelmingly at manufacturing companies, and it was available only in the assisted areas that the Government say they want to help. Does not the abolition of the scheme show that there is now a widening gulf between the rhetoric about rebalancing the economy and the reality of the policies that the Government are pursuing?
Vince Cable
We want to help small businesses, but we intend to do so in a more cost-effective way, and in a more effective way overall. The support for trade finance that I have described is specifically directed at small enterprises. As for the other schemes, such as mentoring, which the right hon. Gentleman will know about through my colleague the Minister of State, Lord Green, we are putting in place a whole series of measures that are focused specifically on the SME community.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on extending the remit of the Export Credits Guarantee Department into small business support, but will he review the department’s performance and structure further? I refer in particular to the fact that 90% of the support that it provides goes to the aerospace industry. That shows a real imbalance, and there are other problems with the functioning of that department too.
Vince Cable
I accept the general argument. We accept that the ECGD is an agency of Government that needs reform. It has been heavily constrained in recent years by judicial reviews of some of its export activities. Of course we have to respect the courts, but the ECGD clearly needs to do more and perform a wider range of functions. What we are announcing today for small-scale enterprises is a key step forward.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The latest figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs indicate that Welsh exports fell by 6.3% in the previous four quarters. Considering that UKTI has no presence in Wales, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that my country, traditionally an exporting nation, is at the heart of this strategy?
Vince Cable
I did not totally follow the hon. Gentleman’s point about the statistics. Just to go over what the most recent statistics from a couple of days ago tell us, exports actually grew by 6% in the last quarter of last year, compared with the previous quarter. We should not read too much into that, because we are in abnormal conditions, but exports, along with business investment and manufacturing, are now growing. Wales, as a manufacturing and export centre, as he says, should be benefiting from that, and I hope that it will.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s statement was strong on specific measures for encouraging trade and exports. However, it was less detailed when it came to inward investment, which is equally important when it comes to creating jobs and growth in the UK. What specific measures is he proposing to boost inward investment into the UK?
Vince Cable
It is right to say that inward investment is enormously important. We start from a position of strength, as a major host country for inward investment. One of the specific actions that we are taking is giving the Trade Minister, Lord Green, personal responsibility for developing close relations with our major inward investors, in order to build up the flow of capital into this country.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
One way to make our businesses, both large and small, more internationally competitive is to ensure that we have the skilled work force that we need for growth. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a vital tool in that is using public procurement, at both local authority and Government level, to increase the number of apprenticeships available? That tool was widely used by the Labour Government, and is successfully used by our European counterparts. Given that my Bill—the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill, which is due to receive its Second Reading this Friday—is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, will the Secretary of State now lend his support to it?
Vince Cable
As it happens, I launched apprenticeship week on Monday, and visited several parts of the country to promote apprenticeships and raise their status. Indeed, Government support has increased, as the hon. Lady knows, with 75,000 new apprenticeships this year. There are good elements in her Bill, and I know that she is talking to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is sitting beside me now, about how we can take those positive elements forward.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for today’s statement on the White Paper. Last week I visited a company called Davin Optronics in Watford, which employs about 50 people. The company is really keen to expand into exports, yet it does not have the resources to fund a major campaign abroad. Can he assure me, first, that the measures in the White Paper for small businesses will assist them through UKTI, and secondly, that he, one of his colleagues or an official from UKTI will visit the company, help it, and get the publicity that this drive deserves?
Vince Cable
I hear many stories of that kind; indeed, I have small businesses in my constituency that are in exactly the same position. If I can meet the company, I shall be happy to do so, and certainly one of my colleagues will. With the additional support that we have given, along with our additional competitiveness through the exchange rate, for example, my hon. Friend will find that large numbers of SMEs will move forward over the next year, and he has identified one such company.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Is the Secretary of State aware that SMEs and exports are the lifeblood of the Northern Ireland economy? Can he tell us whether he has had any discussions with the devolved Governments and the regions? Will there be easy access for companies? We have had a particular difficulty in the past with exports from the food and meat industries. There is also a need to deal with cross-border trade with the Irish Republic, which could be boosted considerably. Will he pay special attention to those issues?
Vince Cable
My colleague the Trade Minister, Lord Green, was in Northern Ireland only a few days ago, meeting Bombardier and other key investors. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to stress the importance of trade with the Irish Republic; somebody pointed out to me recently that our trade with Ireland is worth more than our trade with the BRIC countries put together. Clearly we must not forget that.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
There are many SMEs, particularly manufacturers, in my constituency that are capable of taking on the export opportunities that my right hon. Friend mentions. Often they do not readily receive the relevant information on how to take up those opportunities. How will the information about those opportunities be disseminated to grass-roots SMEs in constituencies such as mine?
Vince Cable
My colleague the Minister of State, Lord Green, is developing a support package for SMEs that involves a much more accessible website that I hope will give the information that such companies require. I totally accept the basic point that, because of a lack of information, there is often a gap between what is available and what is accessed.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State share my concern—and, I am sure, that of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg)—at the letter that I received this week from the vice-chancellors of Sheffield university and Sheffield Hallam university that said that the cut in permits for foreign students will cost Sheffield £25 million in the next year? The Secretary of State has been involved in international education; he is an internationalist; he is intellectual. We are putting up the shutters to foreign students in Britain, which is slowing us down and will cost South Yorkshire a lot of money. Can he talk to the monoculturalists in the Tory party and get some more sense on this issue?
Vince Cable
I am certainly talking to my colleagues in the Home Office and making exactly the case that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] This is a major export industry—worth over £5 billion, quite apart from the other benefits that we derive from having overseas students—and in the universities there is almost no problem. As he knows, there is an issue with some English language schools, but those schools are also a feeder for students going to university here. It is important that we remain as open as possible, while dealing with the undoubted abuses that occur in some cases.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
In this transition year between regional development agencies and local enterprise partnerships, will the Secretary of State ensure that the regions, especially Yorkshire, fully benefit from this excellent White Paper?
Vince Cable
Yes; my hon. Friend has raised the wider point about ensuring that the LEPs are as effective as possible. As he will know, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) has announced that most of Britain, including all our major conurbations, is now covered. I now expect them to get to work, and to address the kind of problems that my hon. Friend has brought to our attention.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Before the statement, I attended an event here in the Commons organised by Heriot-Watt university to highlight the university’s very successful international strategy. The principal pointed out in his speech, however, that the biggest obstacle was the proposed changes in student visas and work permits, which will affect Edinburgh university as well. Those universities, and others, hope that the Secretary of State will be successful in the battle that he is apparently having with the Home Office. This is not just a question of the effect that the changes will have on universities here and now; it is also about the image that this country will have if it sends out an unwelcoming message, as well as the possibility of undermining our export potential. I hope that the Secretary of State will take all these points to the Home Secretary when he has his discussions with her in Cabinet.
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman makes the same point as his colleague the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), and I do not think that I need to reply again at length. I totally accept the importance of having a liberal system for the admission of students—subject to the need to deal with abuses.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Food and farming is now the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, and enterprising companies such as Heygates flour in Downham Market are exporting their products to the middle east. I am concerned about the level of regulation, and about whether BIS sees food and farming as a mainstream industry. The industry is often caught up in regulations both from Europe and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I have worked in international business, selling overseas, and I received a lot of support at that time from embassies and high commissions, under the auspices of the Foreign Office. What is BIS doing to link up with those people who can provide valuable assistance on the ground to people wanting to sell into those markets?
Vince Cable
My colleague is right to emphasise the importance of that industry. Food and drink represents more than 10% of the manufacturing sector. On the various trade missions that I have been on, companies in the sector are often at the top of the list in pushing for better access. In the European Union there are many obstacles to trade, both within the Union and across borders. It has a very illiberal and unsatisfactory system for dealing with agriculture, and we want to open it up.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State confirm press reports earlier this week that his flagship policy of a national insurance holiday for new start-up businesses outside the south-east is failing? According to the figures only 1,500 businesses have come forward, yet the Government expect 400,000 to do so over the next three years. Does he not consider that a flop?
Vince Cable
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s numbers. I get a great deal of feedback, particularly from small companies outside London, telling me that they are benefiting from taking advantage of the national insurance contribution relief. The Chancellor will announce the progress of the scheme in the Budget, and tell the House how he is going to develop it.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
May I add my welcome for the focus on SMEs? The Secretary of State is making absolutely the right judgment on this, because they will be the engine of growth and jobs in the economy. Last Friday I visited Moog, a first-class company in my constituency that is involved in advanced manufacturing and a strong exporter of components. As the Secretary of State knows, that is a very important sector. What more can he do to support advanced manufacturing and companies like that?
Vince Cable
My diary would be seriously oversubscribed if I offered to visit all the companies that have been mentioned this afternoon, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the specifics. Indeed, a key element of the growth strategy that the Government are working through relates specifically to the development of advanced manufacturing, and key support for that will be provided by the technology centres, for which we have obtained additional funding, and which will be rolled out over this year.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
On a day when the Office for National Statistics has revealed that the UK’s trade deficit widened in December to its highest level since August 2005, and the chief economist of the British Chambers of Commerce has said that
“Britain’s trading position is not improving”,
will the Secretary of State concede that it was a big mistake to slash investment in capital allowances, which help manufacturing exporters?
Vince Cable
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has studied the figures carefully. If he does, he will see that the trade deficit narrowed slightly in the last quarter of last year, as against that quarter in previous years. The figures are not good, and they have not been good for many years. We have had very poor trade performance; that is what I said at the start of my statement. We have a massive legacy of underperformance in exports, and particularly in manufactures, that we have to overcome, and the White Paper represents a clear step in the direction of remedying that problem.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that it is important for UKTI to develop co-ordinated relationships with the new local enterprise partnerships, especially in the black country, in order to ensure that local businesses have proper access to export markets?
Vince Cable
Yes, indeed, and that is the case. UKTI will continue to delegate people to work in the regional areas. In the past there has been an enormous amount of duplication and waste, and those people will continue to work in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes, but more effectively than in the past.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
We have just heard that the Secretary of State supports efforts to remove barriers to trade, particularly for commodities such as low-carbon products. Will he therefore update us on when his Department plans to release details of the green investment bank, and how much money will be made available for it?
Vince Cable
I gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee about 10 days ago on the timing of the green investment bank. As I explained then, the business plan will be available in May. We assume that staff will be hired by the end of this year, and that loans will be made next year. I set out the programme and the road map when I was interrogated by the hon. Lady’s colleagues.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I certainly welcome this statement, but I would like to probe the Secretary of State on the question of the European single market in connection with the ability of small businesses to form alliances and joint ventures with other small businesses in Europe. In addition, I would simply observe that SMEs in my constituency have a more than passing interest in capital allowances.
Vince Cable
I continue to hear strong representations about the value of capital allowances from, among others, the Engineering Employers Federation. That is clearly one of the things that the Chancellor will be mulling over before the Budget.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
In Stoke-on-Trent we welcome the emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises and manufacturing exporters, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, there seems to be a dissonance between the rhetoric and the reality. Business Link has announced that it is no longer funding two enterprise agencies in north Staffordshire, Business Initiative and Stafford Enterprise. The local chamber of commerce is very worried about the effect that that will have on local start-ups and their ability to export. There does not seem to be very much joined-up thinking here.
Vince Cable
As many people on this side of the House who have run small businesses will know, the problem with Business Link was that it was a very ineffective system of business support. It has now been replaced, and in future small businesses will have access, through mentoring, to other business people, rather than to those who serviced Business Link, which was not a successful scheme.
Point of Order
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on what recourse is available when a ministerial answer to a written question is not only incorrect but directly contradicts the Government’s own impact assessment of the Health and Social Care Bill? When asked about the cost distortions involved in the private sector providing health care services, compared with an NHS provider, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said in his written answer:
“it has not been possible to determine, on balance, whether NHS bodies or private providers of NHS services are systematically advantaged or disadvantaged relative to the other.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 1007W.]
And yet, Mr Deputy Speaker—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. That is not a point of order, or a matter for me. I would advise the hon. Gentleman that the Table Office is the place to take this matter up, and I am sure that it will be very helpful in trying to put it right. If he takes the matter to the Table Office, I am sure that it can be sorted out quickly.
Former Metal Mines
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give the Coal Authority responsibility for preventing adverse environmental impacts from former metal mines; and for connected purposes.
At present, 9% of rivers in England and Wales are impacted by contaminated water discharging from orphan metal mines. These impacts represent one of the greatest obstacles in achieving water framework directive objectives, along with the problem of gaining back the loss of amenity and areas of ecological value. Metal mines are excluded from the Coal Authority’s duty to remediate similar water pollution emanating from coal mines—a position established under the memorandum of understanding with the Environment Agency in 1999. I propose that orphan metal mines should come under the same supervised expertise of the Coal Authority.
At present there is no legal responsibility for any party to maintain a disused orphan metal mine. This state of affairs is largely down to historical timing, because mining of iron ore largely stopped in the ’60s, as it did in other metal mines—yet coal mining persisted, in the main, into the early ’90s. Work in Wales, the south-west and Northumbria has identified more than 3,700 sites, although not all are causing serious pollution. No metal mines are still in use; the largest tin mine in Cornwall closed in 1998. Deep mines are still working, especially in my constituency at Boulby, where the tradition of mining is kept alive at the Cleveland Potash mine.
I came into contact with the issue of abandoned metal mines through the Saltburn Gill action group. Saltburn Gill is a narrow wooded stream valley leading directly off Saltburn’s famous surfing beach to the historic pier, hydraulic cliff lift and other tourist attractions of that popular Victorian resort town. Much of the Gill is a nature reserve and is designated as a site of special scientific interest as a relic of post-glacial native woodland. It is a popular walking area, and local wildlife attractions include kingfishers and visiting otters. It is also situated near the 82 shafts that access the historic networks of iron ore.
Mining in Teesside began in the 1850s, following the discovery by John Vaughan and John Marley of the main seam outcrop in Cleveland, thereby beginning a 150-year history of iron and steel making on Teesside. The iron ore from those hills, forged on the river Tees, was integral to the Victorian obsession with cast iron, the construction of the Tyne bridge and the building of Sydney harbour bridge.
Unfortunately, both Saltburn Gill and Skelton Beck began to see significant impacts from ochreous mine water appearing overnight on 18 May 1999. That quickly turned this otherwise high-quality watercourse bright orange, devastating the downstream ecology. Saltburn Gill and Skelton Beck are perfect examples of how a local river or stream can be severely impacted by mine water discharging from disused orphaned ironstone mines.
As a result, Saltburn Gill and Skelton Beck are classified as moderate and poor respectively under the water framework directive. Over 330 kg of iron ochre is deposited on the stream bed every day, contributing to 100 tonnes of iron hydroxide ochre delivered straight into the North sea each year. The pollution reduces oxygen in the stream, stops sunlight and smothers the bed, with a devastating effect on the ecology. A biological impact survey of the stream showed that the pollution had reduced the quality of the beck from grade B, which is good, to grade F, which is bad, in the 1.5 km stretch from the discharge to the sea.
Nationally, abandoned mines are the second biggest diffuse water pollutant, after agriculture. In 1992, one of the UK’s biggest pollution incidents took place when 45 million litres of heavily contaminated water burst from the recently closed tin mine at Wheal Jane in Cornwall. The mine water, loaded with cadmium, arsenic, zinc and iron, flooded into the Carnon river, causing a vast plume of polluting orange water in Falmouth bay. In the end, it was decided that a chemical treatment plant was needed to deal with the scale of the problem, allow treated water to flow to the river and block pollution.
That was all achieved by direct Government action at the time after a major incident—not via legislation giving powers to an agency to take preventive measures to avoid such incidents occurring in the first place. For Saltburn Gill action group, assistance was given by the Environment Agency, Teesside university, the local wildlife trust, Saltburn, Marske and New Marske parish council and others, to try to find a solution to the problem.
In 2009, in partnership with the Coal Authority and with funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency undertook a number of investigations to establish the feasibility of building a treatment plant for the mine water at Saltburn. Three boreholes were drilled into the workings and a pumping test was run for three months to help the Environment Agency and Coal Authority to design a treatment plant.
One of the first things discovered was that the mine water level was 10 metres higher than the discharge point. This has raised concerns that there is a risk of a significant outbreak. The pumping test also demonstrated to the Environment Agency and the Coal Authority that the recharge area for the mine was much larger than expected. Laboratory and field-scale tests have shown that up to 99% of the iron could be removed in a treatment plant. Furthermore, there are also industrial economic benefits to be gained from existing coal mine water treatment plants, which could be expanded if metal mines were adopted by the Coal Authority.
About 50,000 tonnes of ochre are collected every year from existing coal mine water treatment plants. The vast majority of this ochre is transported for landfill, despite the fact that it could be used for phosphate removal in sewage treatment works, could provide a pigment in the dye and paint industry, and could be used as a bulking agent and dye in the cement industry, or as feedstock for the iron and steel industry. The UK currently imports 250,000 tonnes of ochre from Australia, while sending to landfill the vast bulk of the 50,000 tonnes that it collects via the Coal Authority. Indeed, some mine waters contain significant quantities of valuable metals, and the potential for extracting them, and other chemicals, both from the mine water and from the ochre is a subject that requires further research.
There are also heritage issues to be considered in the maintenance of abandoned metal mines. A great many mines are protected as scheduled ancient monuments, and some, such as the tin and copper mining areas of Cornwall and west Devon, have UNESCO world heritage site status. Although protection of the heritage of certain sites means some treatment methods are not suitable, it can be a driver for remediation. A good example is at Parys mountain, Anglesey, where remediation activities are led as much by the local industrial heritage trust as by the Environment Agency. Another good example is at the National Coal Mining Museum for England at Caphouse colliery near Wakefield. Rising mine water posed a threat to the underground workings that were open to visitors, as well as to the River Dearne. Through work with the Coal Authority, the mine water was controlled by pumping and treated at the surface. The treatment plant is now part of the visitor attraction, with hides for birdwatching built into wetlands.
Of course, the impact of climate change could make the problem of abandoned mine pollution worse. Increased and heavier rainfall intensity will increase the erosion of contaminated spoil heap material, and sediments and deposition on agricultural land in downstream floodplains.
Legally, the Water Resources Act 1991 is the most important piece of pollution legislation in England and Wales. It outlines the principal offence that a person contravenes the Act if he or she
“causes or knowingly permits any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters.”
Until 31 December 1999, section 89(3) of the same Act contained a defence:
“A person shall not be guilty under Section 85 by reason only of his permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter into controlled waters.”
Consequently, there has only ever been one successful prosecution. Even for the Wheal Jane tin mine, and in other high-profile cases, prosecutions were not brought, following legal advice that “causing” could not be proven because of the long and complicated history. That defence was removed in 1999, but the removal could not be applied retrospectively. This presents difficulties, as the European mining waste directive will mean a new regulatory regime to control waste facilities at working mines and quarries. Crucially, it has implications for abandoned mines. By 2012, member states have to
“ensure that an inventory of closed waste facilities, including abandoned waste facilities...which cause serious negative environmental impacts or have the potential of becoming in the medium or short term a serious threat to human health or the environment is drawn up and periodically updated.”
For all these reasons—litigious, historical, ecological and economic—I move that the Coal Authority be given the legal go-ahead to take over such abandoned metal mines, so that rivers and streams like Saltburn Gill, Saltburn Beck and Skelton Beck are returned to their former glory.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tom Blenkinsop, Ian Swales, Mr Iain Wright, Alex Cunningham, Ian Lavery and Mrs Jenny Chapman present the Bill.
Tom Blenkinsop accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 November 2011, and to be printed (Bill 145).
Police
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 216 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2011-12 (House of Commons Paper No. 771), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
As well as seeking the House’s approval for the grant, I want to explain why this settlement for the police is necessary, challenging but manageable, and how the Government are helping the service to meet the challenge.
On 13 December, I laid before the House the Government’s proposed allocations of grants to police authorities in England and Wales. Following that, the Government held a six-week consultation on the proposed allocation of funding, during which 34 representations were received from across 20 force areas. I would like to thank hon. Members, members of police forces, police authorities and other policing organisations across the country for taking the time to share their views on the provisional settlement. Their comments have been considered carefully and fully.
Having inherited the largest peacetime deficit in Britain’s history, the Government had no option but to reduce public spending, and a police service that spends more than £13 billion a year cannot be exempt from a requirement to save public money. The October spending review set the overall cut in funding at 20% in real terms over four years, and it set the profile of the reduction. I accept that the settlement is challenging, but the Government believe that it is manageable, and that if savings are made in the right areas the service to the public can be maintained and, indeed, improved.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says that the settlement is challenging. Does he accept that it is more challenging for some forces than for others, and that a force in Merseyside depends far more on central Government grant than a force in Surrey, which raises half its funds locally? Will he consider, for the purpose of future years, looking again at an issue that is causing great concern in my constituency?
Nick Herbert
I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s observation that different forces raise different amounts from local taxpayers, and I shall deal with it shortly. I remain open-minded about the issue, given that the report relates to allocations for the next two years.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that over the past few years Essex police have made efficiency savings of 25%? Helicopter, payroll and legal services are now being shared, but Harlow police station remains open 24 hours a day, and our front-line services have been protected.
Nick Herbert
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. There are examples throughout the country—and I intend to provide some—of police forces that are making significant efficiency savings, and working in a smarter way that improves the service to the public even when funds have been reduced. It is clearly possible to achieve that.
It has been said that the profile of the cuts is front-loaded so that forces must find the biggest savings at an early stage. The profile reflects the need to make early progress on reducing the deficit, and it is set, but we must view the grant reductions in context. The biggest cut does not fall in the first year. The average cash reduction in grant is 4% in the first year, 5% in the second, 2% in the third, and 1% in the fourth.
It is also important to remember that a 20% reduction in Government funding in real terms does not mean a 20% reduction in force spending power. Forces do not receive all their funding from central Government; on average they receive about a quarter of it from the council tax component of precept, which is determined locally. If police authorities and, thereafter, elected police and crime commissioners choose to increase precept at the level forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the settlement represents a 14% real-terms reduction in overall funding over four years. Of course I recognise that the local contribution to police spending varies considerably between forces, and I shall deal with that aspect shortly.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Why does the Minister think that a force such as that in Cheshire should lose 200 front-line police officers while the Government are spending money on an unnecessary switch to political police commissioners? My constituents would much prefer that money to be spent on putting officers on the beat.
Nick Herbert
I have explained this to the House before, but I am happy to do so again for the benefit of the hon. Lady. If she looks at the allocations that we have made, she will see that the additional cost of holding an election for police and crime commissioners will not come from force budgets, but has been provided separately by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The argument that, because a cost is involved in the holding of an election, that election should not take place is a very foolish one, and a particularly odd one for an elected Member of Parliament to advance. When the Labour party proposed five different referendums in its manifesto, I did not notice its advancing the argument that a cost would be involved. I should also point out that it is now Labour’s policy for police authority chairs to be directly elected, and that the cost of holding those elections would arise every four years. Perhaps the hon. Lady should remonstrate with those on her party’s Front Bench if she considers that that is not money well spent. There is now agreement on both sides that there should be direct elections, and a cost is involved in that policy. If the Opposition did not believe that a cost was involved, they should not have advanced the policy and voted for it, as they did in Committee just a few weeks ago.
Let me return to the real effect of the funding reductions on forces. Humberside’s force raises the average 25% of its revenue through precept. If we assume that it chooses to adopt the freeze in council tax next year, its total funding will then fall by £5.5 million, or 2.9% of its total income of some £190 million. That is challenging, but it is not unmanageable. As Opposition Members have pointed out, the reductions in years three and four will be smaller.
Some forces, and some Members, have argued that the amount that each force raises in precept should be taken into account in the determination of funding reductions. I understand their argument, because forces that raise very little from precept will face a larger cut than those that raise a great deal. After careful consideration, however, I decided that there would be a number of objections to such an adjustment. First, it would be said that we were penalising council tax payers in other areas who already pay far more for their policing services, and who have experienced a big increase in council tax in previous years. That would certainly be unfair. Secondly, by subsidising forces in that way—including large forces with greater capacity—we would be asking others to take a larger cut in central grant than 20%, and that too would have been regarded as unfair. The fair solution, and the one that was expected by forces and authorities, was to treat all forces the same by making equal cuts in grant.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister appears to have borrowed that very doubtful concept of spending power from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and I am afraid that it is no more reputable in his hands than it was in those of his right hon. Friend. The truth is that there will be a 20% cut in grant, and the truth is that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that a cut of more than 12% will affect police availability. Why does the Minister disagree with HMIC—which has said that a cut of 12% is possible, but that anything beyond that will cut into the front line—and with the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who has said that there will be an effect on front-line policing?
Nick Herbert
There are two answers to that. First, forces on average receive a quarter of their funding from local taxpayers, so it does not make sense to consider only the amount that they receive from central Government. What matters to a force is its total spending power, and it is hardly disreputable to take that into account. Secondly, although I do not disagree with the conclusions of the important report of the inspectorate of constabulary—with which I will deal shortly—I think it possible, as I will explain, to make savings that were beyond the remit of its report.
I am pleased that Opposition Members apparently agree with the policy of the inspectorate of constabulary that forces can save more than £1 billion a year without affecting the front line and while protecting visibility, because that is very important.
Stephen Twigg
I understand the Minister’s explanation, which, in a sense, constitutes a fuller response to my earlier point, but may I urge him to reconsider in future years? The main reason for the contrast between the sources of funding for forces in, say, Merseyside and Surrey is the fact that Merseyside has a higher level of social and economic deprivation. In recent years, council tax payers in my constituency have paid more for the police and have not experienced a freeze, but in practice they will experience a much bigger cut than those in Surrey.
Nick Herbert
I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier that we must remain open-minded about the impact in future years, and we will. I think that this is the fairest approach, and it is the approach that I am taking in relation to the cut in central Government funding. Most of the funding that a force receives through the grant will result from the application of a formula that recognises local need. I know that this raises issues, but ultimately I decided that the right approach to the cut in central Government funding was to treat each force fairly. That is why I decided to apply damping at the level of the average cut.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
May I remind the Minister that Northamptonshire police’s grant funding will decrease by 5.1% next year, when it should have decreased by only 0.9%? That is due to the damping formula, under which Northamptonshire police will lose £3.4 million in 2011-12 and a further £3.7 million in 2012-13. They are subsidising forces throughout the country. Will the Minister promise to look at this matter for next year’s grant?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May we have shorter inventions too, please? Will the hon. Gentleman give me that promise for the future?
Nick Herbert
I have met my hon. Friend and his local chief constable. He knows that I consider this matter very carefully, and he made his points very well on behalf of his constituents. I will discuss damping in a moment, but my hon. Friend’s comments reflect the fact that there will always be differences of view in this House between Members whose police forces benefit from damping and who therefore do not wish to see any change in its application, and Members whose forces have, effectively, paid out under damping and who desperately wish there to be a change. It is therefore not possible for the Government to satisfy everybody. We have had to take decisions in the round, and in accordance with what we consider to be the best and fairest way to address the totality of policing in this country.
As I have said, I decided to apply damping at the level of the average cut. As a result, each force will face an equal percentage reduction in core Government funding in 2011-12 and 2012-13, thereby ensuring that no one force will face an unacceptably large reduction in its budget. This mirrors the approach we took in the in-year savings following the emergency Budget and, importantly, it is what police forces were expecting and planning upon.
I appreciate that different forces have different views on this decision, as do hon. Members, and I understand why forces such as the West Midlands and Dorset—and, indeed, Northamptonshire—are keen to see damping phased out or removed entirely, while others such as Cumbria and Cheshire welcome its retention. As I have said, in making decisions such as these I must, of course, think about policing as a whole. I also appreciate the wider case against damping, and there is a strong argument for moving at the right time to a full application of the formula, recognising the policing needs of each area, but doing so now would have created real difficulty. I should also point out that the vast majority of funding that forces receive is allocated according to the formula. Therefore, force level allocations will remain as I announced in December.
Historically, there have been a number of ring-fenced grants to police forces. The Government’s general approach has been to remove ring-fencing and to roll funding into the main grant so that forces have greater local flexibility in determining how resources are spent. That has been the case for the rural policing fund. From 2006-07, it had already been amalgamated with four other specific grants to create what is known as rule 2 grant, but we are now rolling that into the police main grant. I want to emphasise, especially to Members representing rural constituencies, that as result of my decision on damping levels the decision on rolling this grant into the main grant means that no force will be worse off.
In some instances, I believe the case for ring-fencing grants remains strong. Outside London, the neighbourhood policing fund will be ring-fenced for the next two years to ensure the continuing funding of police community support officers, who play a valuable role in community policing. When police and crime commissioners are introduced, it will be up to them to make decisions over funding. In London, where the Mayor can already exercise this local determination, the ring fence is being lifted now, but the fund is being maintained at £340 million next year and £338 million the following year. When some Members make their allegations about cuts in front-line policing, they might like to note that that ring-fenced fund has been maintained.
The counter-terrorism specific grant has been relatively protected with a 10% cut in real terms over four years. This is a cut of just 1% in cash terms, and must be seen against a very rapid increase in resource and capital spending—some 49% in the last four years. The Government and the police service are confident that there will be no reduction in police effectiveness in this crucial area, where savings can be made but where well over £500 million will continue to be spent each year.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Minister has rightly put the emphasis on the local areas, because it is their budget in the end. Does he not agree, however, that there is a responsibility on the Home Office to show leadership in respect of local forces? That is especially the case for procurement; the Home Office should encourage local forces to collaborate and pool resources in order to procure.
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and I will address that issue later, as I intend to set out the savings that I believe can be made. The Home Office has a role to play in driving that, and in asking for the leadership of forces to share services and collaborate so that we can realise the considerable savings that are possible in procurement.
I was talking about funding to ensure national security. Similarly, funding for Olympic security has been prioritised. Up to £600 million will remain available if required for the safety and security programme, as originally pledged, although we expect that that should be delivered for rather less, at £475 million.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If it transpires that the Minister can pay for Olympic security at the lower figure as he hopes, what will he do with the extra money? Will it be reinvested to make up for some of the police cuts?
Nick Herbert
Well, I think it is important that up until the Olympics the pledged sum remains in place in order to ensure security. Such decisions can be taken afterwards.
The Metropolitan police will continue to receive a national, international and capital city grant, recognising the unique duties they perform. It will be worth £200 million next year, although it will be reduced in subsequent years on the same basis as the police main grant.
The Government’s absolute priority is to ensure that the England and Wales police service retains and enhances its ability to protect and serve the public. Understandably, there has been much focus on the impact of the settlement on police numbers. Given the need to reduce public spending, we cannot guarantee the number of police and staff, which had reached record levels—almost 250,000 people—and neither, of course, could the previous Government.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Minister says that the number of police officers will be reduced. Recently, he is supposed to have said that there is no link between the commission of crime and the number of police. Does he still stand by that statement?
Nick Herbert
I did not say that; I said there was no simple link, and there is not.
All parties agree with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that police forces can make savings of over £1 billion a year while maintaining police availability. However, that will mean smaller police work forces in order to support the £1 billion a year of savings HMIC says can be made, which I do not think the Opposition have understood. That is why I regard it as so unacceptable that the Opposition should campaign on the issue of police numbers when they are committed to cutting spending by over £1 billion a year, which will lead to a reduction in police numbers.
The challenge for the service is to improve efficiency, drive out waste and increase productivity so that front-line policing is prioritised and the service to the public is maintained or improved.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I agree that the police can save money, and they might start to do so by addressing some of the equality and diversity politically correct drivel on which they waste millions of pounds each year. If the Government were simply cutting the police budget and savings could be found, that would be fine. However, the problem with the Government’s argument is that they are doing this against the backdrop of restricting the police’s ability to use the DNA database to catch criminals and trying to restrict further the use of CCTV cameras which also help the police catch criminals, and they are releasing people from prison and having fewer criminals in prison. They cannot do all those things with fewer police.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
As I have already said, we must have much shorter interventions.
Nick Herbert
I always know it is a mistake to take interventions from my hon. Friend, but no doubt it is a mistake I will continue to make. I enjoy his interventions, but I note that, although it seemed to me that Opposition Front-Bench Members were giving lots of nods to what he said, they have still not understood the importance of ensuring a proper balance between security and liberty in this country. In spite of everything the new leader of their party has said, they have still not understood that.
There are also areas beyond the HMIC’s report—this comes directly to the point made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—where savings can be made by forces working together. There are 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 police forces, and some 5,000 staff. We estimate that savings of some £330 million could be found through joint procurement of goods, services and IT. The vast bulk of these savings —around a third of a billion pounds or more—will be additional to the savings identified by HMIC.
The time for just talking about IT convergence, collective procurement, collaboration, sharing and outsourcing services is over. We cannot afford not to do these things, and we cannot afford to delay, so, where necessary, the Government will mandate the changes required. That is why I am about to lay regulations before Parliament to require the police service to buy certain IT vehicles, and so on, through specified national framework arrangements.
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I welcome very much what he has just said. This issue has been the subject of much discussion in the Home Affairs Committee, driven by its former member, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). There is a need for central procurement: a list, a book, a catalogue—not quite like Argos, but something that can be used as a template for various police forces to choose from.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support and I hope this approach will command support across the whole House, because it does make sense for the 43 forces to procure together where that will make savings; and the savings are quite considerable.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Pursuing that point, if there is some rationalisation among the 2,000 IT systems, would that not also lead to significantly more effective policing and a reduced risk, for instance, of systems being out of synch and data getting lost between different systems?
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. Friend that making these efficiencies and improvements in business processes is about not just saving money, but improving the quality of the service. Those two things are not incompatible, and it is time we stopped talking as though they were.
Nick Herbert
I want to make a little more progress, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
The inspectorate’s report focuses on reducing police force costs to average levels, but why should forces not be able to go further by matching the performance of the best, rather than merely the average? If forces improve productivity and adjust to the level of spend typical of the more efficient forces, that could add another £350 million to the savings calculated in HMIC’s report.
Pay, too, was outside the scope of the report. It accounts for the bulk of total police spending—some £11 billion last year. Any organisation in which the majority of the cost is pay, and which is facing tough times, has to look at its pay bill. The Government have announced a policy for a two-year pay freeze across the public sector. Subject to any recommendations from the police negotiating board and agreement on staff pay, this might save some £350 million. We have asked Tom Winsor to review the remuneration and conditions of service of police officers and staff. The Government have asked the review to make recommendations that are fair to, and reasonable for, both the taxpayer and police officers and staff. I want to emphasise the importance of fairness to police officers, who cannot strike and who often do a difficult and dangerous job on the public’s behalf. Tom Winsor’s first report is due to be published in February, with the second part due in June. Taken together, we believe there are potential savings of some £2.2 billion a year by 2014-15, which is greater than the real reduction in central grant.
These changes require a fundamental redesign of policing, with far greater collaboration, shared services and the potential use of outsourcing. However, this does not mean a worse service to the public. Savings must be driven in the back and middle-offices of police forces—areas where functions are important, even if invisible to the public, but could be done more efficiently. These functions have grown disproportionately as the money rolled in and bureaucracy predominated. As Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester police, told the Home Affairs Committee earlier this month,
“some of our headquarters operations had got too big.”
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that there is a danger that if forces cut back such staff—for instance, North Wales police is cutting one in four back-room staff—all that happens is that front-line officers have to be pulled off the beat to do that job?
Nick Herbert
No, I do not accept that at all. The challenge is to ensure that those functions are done more efficiently; it is not simply a question of handing the function to someone else. No one is saying that back and middle-office functions can or should be abolished, but they can become much leaner.
Furthermore, protecting the front-line service does not mean setting it in aspic. Productivity at the front line can be improved, too, so that resources are better deployed in order to maintain or improve the service to the public. For example, West Yorkshire police have significantly reduced the time taken to investigate a crime. Improving the standard of initial investigation, they reduced the average time taken to investigate low-level crime by 85%. Wiltshire police have significantly reduced the time neighbourhood and response officers spend in custody centres, and off the streets, from an average of 27 minutes to an average of 10 minutes. That is worth 3,000 extra hours of street policing.
In Brighton, Sussex police have put in place a dedicated team for secondary investigations, reducing the amount of paperwork that response officers have to complete and allowing them to return quickly to the streets after answering a call. This saved nearly £1 million, improved response times and sped up the time it takes to complete an investigation.
Surrey police have changed their arrangements in order to co-locate some officers in council buildings, rather than their remaining in little-used police buildings, thereby saving money. That has helped to fund the recruitment of additional constables.
Hazel Blears
The Minister will be aware that the area-based grants that many deprived local authorities have received to date have been used, as with my own council in Salford, to tackle antisocial behaviour in exactly that way—by having co-located teams dealing with the same families. That area-based grant has now been completely abolished—by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. If there is any thought of joined-up government, clearly, this is not it.
Nick Herbert
I simply do not accept the right hon. Lady’s contention that it is somehow not possible for services to work together because they are receiving less money; that is a strong incentive for them to work together and to save resources.
Robert Halfon
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to me for a second time. Given what I said earlier about Essex police collaborating successfully with police forces in the south-east, such as Kent, on payroll services and on procuring helicopters and other vehicles, and given what he said about passing regulation for those who do not collaborate, will he look favourably on forces that are collaborating in future funding formulas?
Nick Herbert
Of course we will continue to look at all these issues, and I welcome the collaboration that has taken place in my hon. Friend’s force. HMIC was clear that collaboration has to proceed at a faster pace, and we will look at all the potential incentives to ensure that that is the case.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend said something terribly important about mandating collaboration, which I have long argued for, particularly through the Policing and Crime Bill in 2009. He talked about collaboration in the context of procurement. What about mandated collaboration in the context of protective services?
Nick Herbert
There is strong potential for forces to collaborate on protective services, and again, we want to see such things happen. We have ensured in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which is currently in Committee, that strong duties will be placed on police and crime commissioners to collaborate. It is very important that forces do that. Indeed, in a speech I gave a couple of weeks ago, I said that the age of police fiefdoms is over. There is a need for police forces to work together more effectively. The Government do not believe in forced mergers of police forces, but we cannot have 43 forces doing things all on their own when there are great savings and efficiencies to be made in exactly the sort of area that my hon. Friend represents by working together.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am glad that the Minister mentioned some of the collaboration taking place between the Sussex and Surrey forces, and the better working with local authorities, which relates to an earlier point. He will know that from 1 April West Sussex is to have one division, which is a way for police administration to be more efficient, and it also leads to better front-line services.
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I also gave the example of Surrey, where co-location has proved possible despite the funding reductions that have taken place. It shows that with innovation it is possible to think afresh about how these services are delivered to the public.
The key to the changes that I have outlined is service improvement from the same or less resource. As Derbyshire’s chief constable said last month:
“People won’t really see much difference in terms of neighbourhood policing, emergency response and uniformed patrols—we’ll still have a huge amount of people in the front line.”
We must also tackle the bureaucracy, which has tied up police time. It is no use focusing only on police numbers if too much police time is spent on inefficient or unnecessary tasks. Every hour of police time we save by cutting red tape is an hour’s more potential time spent on front-line duties. Scrapping the stop form and reducing the stop- and-search form, which officers have to complete, could save up to 800,000 hours of officer time.
I recognise the challenge facing policing. I also appreciate that many in the police work force are worried about their remuneration and indeed their jobs. I certainly do not belittle that concern, but my first priority must be to ensure that the best service is provided to the public within the financial constraints that we all face. Every chief constable I have met has impressed upon me his or her determination to do everything possible to protect front-line services while dealing with the reduction in funding. The Government are determined to work with the police service to ensure that that is the case.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Today the House is being asked to approve a 20% cut in Government funding for the police force in England and Wales. The deputy chief constable of Devon and Somerset, Shaun Sawyer, has said that these are
“the biggest…cuts for a generation”.
The deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire has said that the cuts are “unprecedented” and will have a
“real impact on people's lives and families.”
The House is being asked to vote for 20% cuts, a reduction of more than 10,000 police officers, and substantial cuts to police community support officers and critical support staff. The choice for MPs today is whether to back those cuts to the police in their own constituencies or to stand up, defend their communities and tell the Government to think again.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will tell me whether he is prepared to support the cuts to the police in his constituency.
Henry Smith
May I ask the right hon. Lady whether she supports the Darling deficit reduction plan, which I understand the new shadow Chancellor also supports and which would have seen £9 of every £10 of the Government’s proposed cuts to the police service going ahead?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong, and I just say to him that he will be voting today to support 500 police officers being cut from the Sussex police force. I wonder whether he will put that on his leaflet when he campaigns at the next election—it will certainly be on ours.
Chief constables across the country are being put in an impossible position. Of course they are working hard to reassure the public, to do everything they can to improve policing, to manage with the budgets that the Minister has given them, and to deliver the best possible service and keep reducing the level of crime, but they are having the rug pulled from beneath them by the crazy scale and pace of these cuts. He can try all the smoke and mirrors he wants—he talks about cash cuts and hypothetical council tax increases—but the facts are very clear: there are to be more than 7% of real cuts in the police grant for next year and more than 8% the following year. The total cut is more than 20% in real terms, which is more than £2 billion, as the Minister has admitted.
What are the consequence of that? They are: 100 fewer police officers in Cumbria; 258 fewer police officers in Cheshire; 256 fewer police officers in South Wales; 114 fewer police officers in the Thames Valley; more than 1,000 fewer officers in the West Midlands; and more than 1,000 fewer police officers in London. The result is more than 10,000 fewer police officers in England and Wales. They are not our figures, but the figures from the chief constables and police authorities across the country. This means 10,000 police officers gone, which is the equivalent of every police officer in Hampshire, Kent and Sussex put together, or every police officer in the entire east midlands. That is the reduction that these areas are having to face and that is just the start.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way if the hon. Gentleman can say whether he will be putting the police cuts in his area on his leaflet at the next election.
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps I should ask the hon. Gentleman what he means by the “front-line”. He may think that trained police officers can just be got rid off without that having any impact on the communities they serve, but that is not what his constituents think and it is not what the people of Staffordshire will think when 70 police officers are cut as part of the planned cuts that his Government are introducing.
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Lady is committed to cutting police funding by more than £1 billion a year. Is she saying that that can be done without reducing the size of the work force? How many of the 10,000 police officers that she has said are to go are front-line officers?
Yvette Cooper
I will come back to the point that the Minister raises about what Labour’s plans would be, because that is important, but first let me address the issue about the front line. The Prime Minister promised to protect the front line and he promised to carpet any Minister putting forward front-line cuts. The Home Secretary said that it is possible for the police to make significant reductions in their budgets “without affecting front-line policing.” But officers are being lost from the front line every single day—their number has reduced by 2,000 since the election alone. London is losing 300 sergeants from the safer neighbourhood teams, Birmingham has already lost police from its community teams, and the plans of the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire forces have already troubled residents. Thanks to budget cuts, those forces have told gun owners that they will not be doing home visits and people can renew their gun licence by phone. The police have said in response:
“Unfortunately in the current climate policing is having 20% removed from its budgets we have to make the best use of that money and we are adopting a risk based approach.”
Those police have been put in an impossible position. What is more front line than keeping neighbourhoods safe or preventing gun crime? What is more front line than 10,000 trained police officers?
We have asked the Government what they mean by protecting the front line. In the other place in December, they were asked for their definition of the front-line policing that the Home Secretary said she would protect. It took more than two months for Baroness Neville-Jones to reply:
“There is no formally agreed definition of frontline police services.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. WA50.]
Now we know why they will not protect those services—they do not even know what they are. But crime victims and communities across the country know exactly what front-line services are and they can see that they are under threat every day from this Government.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. If she cannot define front-line services, how does she know that officers are going from the front line? Will she answer the question I asked? As she is committed to cutting police funding by more than £1 billion a year, will she admit that that would mean a smaller police work force?
Yvette Cooper
The Minister has tried to claim that police officer jobs would go under Labour’s plans. Let us be clear: our view is that we should be giving the police enough money to protect police officers and police community support officers across the country because we believe they are doing a good job. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, did indeed announce plans for just more than £1 billion to be made in efficiency savings over this Parliament and yes, we have made it clear that we would have cut the police budget in line with those efficiency plans. He set out measures through which that could be done, such as greater collaboration, procurement savings and better management of staff and shifts to save money on overtime. We agree that the police service should continue to do more of what it has already been doing to improve efficiency. However, the Minister is cutting not £1 billion but £2 billion. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary identified 12% of efficiency savings, not 20%, and it said:
“A cut beyond 12% would almost certainly reduce police availability”.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way if the hon. Gentleman will say whether those 70 officers will now be on his leaflet.
Mr Burley
The right hon. Lady mentioned Staffordshire police: perhaps I can explain to her what their front line might be. Staffordshire police have committed to retaining every police officer in their neighbourhood police teams, but they are still cutting 250 back-office staff. Will she join me in congratulating Staffordshire police on keeping all the front-line officers in their neighbourhood police teams?
Yvette Cooper
Staffordshire police, like other police forces across the country, are having to work immensely hard to keep the police working to do everything they possibly can to fight crime while they are faced with massive cuts. Staffordshire police are faced with a 7.5% cut in their budget next year alone, followed by an 8.7% cut the following year. Those steep cuts in the first year will have consequences in relation to the 70 police officers being lost, specialist teams and the work being done across the police force.
The Government are cutting more from police budgets in two years than the former Home Secretary proposed over a Parliament. If the Home Secretary and the Minister think that can all be done through efficiency savings, what do they have to say to the chief constables across the country who are cutting officers? Are they all wrong? Are they all profligate? Are they all inadequate in meeting efficiency challenges? Or is the truth that they are doing their best to manage in the face of very difficult cuts? Is not the truth that the Home Secretary and the Minister have broken with more than a century of Tory tradition? They are not looking for efficiency savings as an alternative to police officer cuts—they think that efficiency savings are the police officer cuts. They think that the best way to improve police productivity is to cut the number of police working across Britain.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right about the huge difference between the claims that those on the Government side made before the election and the reality of what they are doing now.
We now have the first Home Secretary and Policing Minister in Tory party history to want fewer police working to fight crime across Britain. The Minister is the first Policing Minister in Tory party history to believe there is no link between the number of police and the level of crime, ignoring the evidence of recent history—the 43% drop in crime in the Labour years alongside the 17,000 extra police and the 16,000 police community support officers.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 2,000 police officers will go in the west midlands under the proposals?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right: West Midlands police are being heavily affected and are set to lose a large number of police officers. That is already having an effect on communities across the area, with some police officers reporting considerable difficulties as a result of the recruitment freeze that has had to be implemented and the consequences that is having on their ability to go to neighbourhood meetings and to respond to concerns that are raised with them.
Steve McCabe
Is not one of the problems that the West Midlands police suffer from the gearing effect? Although the Minister has given the impression that the cuts were modest—I think he quoted £5 million in Hull—the gearing effect in the West Midlands police means they are losing 17.2% of their total resources. That is nearly £100 million, and they cannot lose that without cutting front-line staff.
Yvette Cooper
The situation in the west midlands is clear. The number of police officers is being cut and that is having an impact on the area.
The latest research on the links between police and crime from Civitas, which the Minister presumably regards as a bastion of left-wing profligacy—he shakes his head to indicate that he disagrees with Civitas—shows that there is a
“strong relationship between the size of police forces and national crime rates”.
That report states:
“A nation with a larger proportion of police officers is somewhat more likely to have a lower crime rate. A nation with fewer police is more likely to have a higher crime rate.”
More importantly, perhaps, those on the Government Benches are ignoring the public. Today’s poll shows that two thirds of people believe that crime will rise as a result of the Home Secretary’s cuts. People do not want the cuts to the police that the Government are introducing.
The Minister often resorts to the claim that it is Labour’s red tape which is responsible for the fact that only 11%—to quote the figure that he uses—of force strength is visible and available. He fails to point out, in a misrepresentation of the HMIC analysis, that that figure for a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service does not take account of the officers on late shift, night shift or rest day, or of the officers working on serious investigations, counter-terrorism, drugs, cyber crime or child protection.
The right hon. Gentleman should consider for a moment what would happen if his own efficiency were measured in the same way. Let us imagine that the test of Ministers’ efficiency was the amount of time in a 24/7 period that they spent speaking in the House of Commons. The amount of time that the Policing Minister spends sleeping, eating and working on knife crime, counter-terrorism or long-term planning would not be counted, as the Government do not count comparable time for the police.
On the basis of the Minister’s week in the Chamber for debate and in the Bill Committee—he has been busy —he gets to an average visibility 24/7 of not 11%, which the police manage, but 3.27%, and that includes the radio time that he was forced to do on Sunday. His visibility is not as good as that of the police, but I am sure he has some efficiency plans to share his red boxes across Departments. His boss, the Home Secretary, is at 0%. Where, by the way, is the Home Secretary?
Keith Vaz
I commend my right hon. Friend for her great interest in what the Minister has been doing. It is a fascinating study. I know that she is making a powerful point, but perhaps she could be a little charitable to the Minister. It may be that the Home Office did not envisage the kind of cuts that she has been talking about. Does she agree that Ministers should go back to the Treasury to explain that the effects of the cuts are very severe indeed, and that an additional special grant ought to be given to the Home Office to deal with that?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It may well be that Ministers believed the figures they were given by the Treasury and believed that front-line services would not be hit. However, the pace and the scale of the cuts are indeed hitting front-line services. They are having an impact on police forces across the country. Ministers ought to go back to the Treasury to discuss that again.
Hazel Blears
As my right hon. Friend knows, a consultation was launched this week on tackling antisocial behaviour. Whatever the Government do to rename the orders and introduce some kind of cosmetic change, is it not the truth that in order to reduce antisocial behaviour, we need PCSOs and police officers on the front line in our communities, where it matters?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. She worked to tackle antisocial behaviour over many years and initiated some extremely important work. She is right that all the powers in the world will make no difference if we do not have the police in place to work closely with communities in local areas to implement those powers in practice.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. If four people ring up and then one rings a second time, does that person count as a fifth person? Presumably the Home Office will set out guidance and red tape for local communities and police to follow.
Where is the Home Secretary today? That is an important question, because I understand that she has been sighted in the building. I know that such debates are normally attended by Ministers of State, but normally Home Secretaries do not cut the police grant by 20%. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is coming here to defend his cuts, so why will she not defend hers? Could it be because she knows that she got stitched up in the spending review and so will not defend it? She left the Minister out on his own—a very thin blue line—and will not join the police cuts front line.
The Government are taking a gamble with crime and policing, just as they are taking a gamble with the economy.
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, which I thank her for. Will she please answer my question, which I will now ask a third time? Will she admit that the cuts of more than £1 billion in policing to which she has committed could only be achieved by making the police work force smaller?
Yvette Cooper
We have said very clearly that we believe that the police should have the money to protect the number of police officers and police community support officers. Those are the numbers of staff that we believe ought to be protected across the country, in contrast to the cut of 10,000 in police officers. We think that we should have 10,000 more than the number the Minister is now pursuing right across the country. It is wrong for Britain and wrong for communities, and the public know it. No matter how many games he plays with smoke and mirrors, the public know it and want the extra police officers.
We will support those extra 10,000 police officers and would provide the funding to support them, because we think that that is the right thing to do. The Government are taking a gamble with crime and policing, just as they taking a gamble with the economy. They are cutting too far and too fast. They are risking economic growth and jobs and now are risking public safety and the fight against crime. Their Back Benchers should think again.
The Liberal Democrats are voting for a cut of 10,000 police officers, instead of the increase of 3,000 that they promised, and the Conservatives are ripping up hundreds of years of supporting the police in order to cut the front line. I say to Members of both parties that if they vote for these cuts today, they are badly out of touch with what their constituents want and are turning their backs on the fight against crime. Britain was not broken, but the Government are doing their best to break it now. Those Members should join us in telling the Government to go back, think again and come back with a better plan.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I have a sense of déjà vu in this debate, partly because we had a dry run of it a few weeks ago, and partly because I heard an excellent opening speech from the Minister during that debate. I am afraid that mine will suffer because other Members may have the same sense of déjà vu when they hear some of my points.
My starting point for the debate is the same as the Minister’s, which is that there are some inconvenient facts: we have the worst deficit in the G20 and the largest peacetime deficit since the second world war, and we are spending £120 million a day on the interest alone on our debt. Those are inconvenient facts, but they are givens, or known knowns, as Donald Rumsfeld might say.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his rather predictable intervention, but immediately before it I was explaining—he clearly was not listening—why the Government are having to take these decisions. He and the former Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench must accept responsibility for that.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), because we expect the Opposition to come forward with some solutions, but during her speech I detected only one sentence in which she referred to the £1 billion of cuts that they would make and said that they would do something about back-office functions and procurement. So that is the Opposition’s solution. That is the one sentence that the Opposition’s spokesperson provided, stating how they, if in government, would have resolved the problems that we face.
Stephen Twigg
Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that, in that one sentence—I think it was more than one sentence—of my right hon. Friend’s speech, she referred specifically to the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary? The figure is not one that we have plucked off the top of our heads; it is based on the HMIC’s view of the savings that can be made without damaging front-line services.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course he is right, and the Government have based their measures on the HMIC report as well, but people who read and listen to this debate will want to hear exactly what impact HMIC’s recommendations, if implemented, will have on, for example, staff numbers, a point to which the official Opposition’s spokesperson did not respond. She ducked and dived on that point.
The Opposition can pretend that the £40 billion of cuts that they intended making, including 20% cuts throughout Departments, would have gone unnoticed, would have had no impact on front-line services and would have left police forces throughout the country unscathed, but we know, they know and people outside know that that is completely untrue.
There is no point disguising the fact that the settlement is tough. That is true, and it impacts on police budgets. As the Minister said, in 2011-12 there is a 4% reduction in cash terms. In 2012-13, there is a 5% reduction, but, thanks to the HMIC report and the measures that police forces are already taking throughout the country, much of the reduction can be made through greater efficiency.
Police forces are already delivering many examples of such efficiency. In one local example, Sutton and Merton police forces are looking at sharing a custody suite, and if successful in those two force areas, the idea might be rolled out across the whole Met police force area and in others further afield. That is exactly the sort of measure that police forces and police authorities should pursue.
The Minister quite rightly identified what is possible through IT systems savings and, as I said in an intervention, we can derive not only cash savings from that source, but great improvements in efficiency and the likelihood of resolving cases, as the communications problems between different systems are addressed.
One issue that I raised in the previous debate, and on which I hope the Minister has had time to do some work, is training for senior officers. The HMIC report identifies that there was no commonly held belief that those officers needed a detailed understanding of how to ensure that the efficiency savings—the mergers—took place effectively. The Government, HMIC or others might be able to assist with training to ensure that officers are equipped to take such tough decisions, because there are real differences between forces’ proposals.
Some forces are coming forward with a headline figure for the number of officers they are going to cut, while others are coming forward with a range of options—particularly on back-office and procurement—that could identify significant savings without the need to cut staff numbers, which some forces seem to have gone for as the first rather than the last resort.
I want to raise some specific Met issues. The Minister will be aware that the force has not yet taken a decision to cut sergeant numbers by 300; it is considering the idea, but it says it
“will be directed by final analysis and must reflect operational delivery.”
I urge the Met to maintain those officer numbers, but if that is not possible, to look at some of the proposals that I mentioned, particularly on sharing back-office functions, joint custody suites and the like to ensure that the number of police officers in the safer neighbourhood teams is maintained at the level at which it is currently set.
Equally, as I said earlier, safer neighbourhood teams may be undertaking tasks that are not their responsibility. I mentioned the example of drive-outs from petrol stations, which are taking up an inordinate amount of time in the case of at least one of my safer neighbourhood teams. After I raised that case, the local force have asked to meet me to discuss it as a wider issue, so it clearly affects not just one safer neighbourhood team but several in the borough. If a large proportion of their time is spent trying to deal with a problem that the petrol companies should be able to resolve technologically, we should look at the issue carefully to try to free up officer time to concentrate on things that really do need police intervention.
Mr Burley
If we want to help the police with their finances, does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps now is the time for premiership football clubs to start thinking about making a greater contribution to the costs of policing their football matches instead of all those police being deployed purely at taxpayers’ expense?
Tom Brake
I entirely agree. Given the stringent financial circumstances in which the Government are operating, that is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be considered.
The Minister referred to the review of staffing and overtime arrangements. Although I agree that very high levels of overtime are costly, and that needs to be looked at, such overtime often allows the police to undertake special tasks that they could not do otherwise and can do without the need to grow the number of full-time police officers. This requires some flexibility. Simply saying “No more overtime” would severely constrain some of the activities that the police are undertaking and that people clearly welcome and want to happen.
There are clearly many measures that the police can take to cut back to ensure that they are making the right level of efficiency savings. If the police undertake such actions, which are documented in the HMIC report, and if they look at the best practice that exists in police forces around the country, they can make the savings that they are being required to make without an impact on front-line services.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
No Labour Member would argue with the contention that there is always scope for efficiency in public services, including the police service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke about the HMIC report, as did the Minister. Our opposition to what the Government are planning is based on the sheer scale of the cuts to the police service that are set out. My additional argument, on which I will elaborate and on which I intervened on the Minister, is that there is unfairness in the allocation of those cuts as between different police forces around the country.
I should like to comment on the work that Merseyside police are doing. As in the case, I imagine, of most, if not all hon. Members on both sides of the House, crime and antisocial behaviour are consistently the biggest issues that my constituents raise with me on the doorstep, in surveys, in correspondence and at surgeries. In recent years, Merseyside police have faced some very serious challenges. Merseyside is No. 1 of any police force in the country in terms of the number of drug offences. I am therefore very concerned about the impact of cuts that are being made to the UK Border Agency, as well as cuts to local government and voluntary sector services for those with drug addiction.
In other areas, Merseyside has made truly remarkable progress in recent years. In 2005-06, it was the third highest police force in the country for violent crime, with a rate of 25.6 offences per 1,000 population. Thanks to the hard work of the police, including their work with the local community, that rate has halved over the past five years to 13 per 1,000, putting us 22nd in England, which puts it in the lower half of police forces. That is truly remarkable progress. Every indication that I have is that Merseyside police are determined to continue that progress, even in the context of the cuts that we are discussing.
Almost four years ago in what is now my constituency, there was the tragic murder of Rhys Jones. His death provided the context for a greater focus on crime, including violent crime, in Liverpool and across Merseyside. In considering the way forward for Merseyside and the fairness, or rather unfairness, of the proposed cuts, everyone in my constituency is concerned to ensure that never again do we see the tragedy of what happened to young Rhys. The police responded brilliantly and with great professionalism in that case, which resulted in serious convictions by the courts for those who murdered Rhys Jones.
Already in 2010-11, 200 police officer jobs and 80 police staff jobs are being lost in Merseyside. There is a moratorium on further recruitment, which will continue into next year. The police have estimated that by March 2012—in just over a year’s time—we will have lost almost 10% of police officer posts in Merseyside. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) talked about chief constables making every effort to ensure that losing police officer posts is a last resort. I think I wrote down correctly that he said that some chief constables were treating it as their first resort. I very much doubt that that is the case in any authority. I can say with certainty that it is not the case in Merseyside, where the chief constable, whom I and other Liverpool MPs met in the House a couple of weeks ago, has made every effort to maximise efficiencies and minimise the direct impact on local people through the loss of police officers.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke about inconvenient facts. Last year, the Liberal Democrats in Greater Manchester, and no doubt in Merseyside, went into the election knowing about the deficit and promising more, not fewer, police. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats have a duty to apologise to our constituents for giving a false impression of what they would do in office?
Stephen Twigg
Absolutely; I concur with my hon. Friend. Of course, that is not the only promise that the Liberal Democrats made to the British people last May that they have broken. They made that promise knowing, as my hon. Friend said, what the Budget position was. It was a deeply irresponsible pledge to make.
Stephen Twigg
The figures were very much in the public domain. To be fair to the Conservative party, it did say that it would prioritise cuts. There is a specific issue about the Liberal Democrats having said one thing in opposition and saying the complete opposite now that they are part of the coalition Government.
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. I will not focus the rest of my speech on Liberal Democrat broken promises, but the case has been very well made.
I intervened on the Minister to raise the question of the fairness of the distribution of the cuts. He set out the consultation process in some detail, and entirely understandably set out that the forces and authorities that would lose out if there were some attempt to protect those that were more reliant on central Government funding had lobbied against that. I appreciate what he said about the nature of the formula and the difficulty of changing it, and clearly the cuts relate to the original formula. Unfortunately, I am not suggesting that that can be changed quickly, but I repeat what I said in my intervention: I hope that the Government will consider the matter as we move forward.
Looking at the estimated police budget figures that the Library has produced, we see that in the forthcoming financial year, 2011-12, Merseyside’s estimated police budget, taking into account local revenue raising as well as central Government funding, will be cut by 5.8% whereas Surrey’s cut will be 3.7%. There is every indication that that gap will apply again in the following year and therefore have a cumulative effect.
In Merseyside, there have consistently been increases in the police authority precept over recent years. The local police authority has not thought, “We’re getting all this money from central Government, so we can let our council tax payers off and freeze the precept or have only a modest increase.” There have been significant increases in the amount contributed by council tax payers in Merseyside to the funding of the police. The basic reality is that on average, people in Merseyside are poorer than people in Surrey. The reason why Merseyside’s local police depend more on central Government funding than others is primarily to do with deprivation. That point applies also to other authorities, and when there are cuts on the scale that we are seeing, it is a cause for great concern. To his credit, the Minister undertook earlier to consider the matter again in future. Perhaps I might ask that he meet Merseyside MPs at his early convenience to discuss those concerns.
Stephen Twigg
The Minister nods, so I am delighted to accept that we can have that meeting.
Clearly, the cuts will have an impact on forces right across the country, but that impact will differ. When there are spending cuts on such a scale, it is incumbent on the Government to consider the unfairness of those different impacts. There is clearly a need for savings in public expenditure on the police, and HMIC has considered the matter in great detail and come up with the quoted figure of 12%. My contention today is, first, that by going so significantly above that figure, the Government will inevitably damage the police service across the country; secondly, that the effects are not fair or consistent but differ for the reasons that I have given; and thirdly, that those effects are compounded by the impact of other cuts in public spending, particularly local government cuts.
Merseyside police receives direct funding from Liverpool and other local authorities for aspects of its work on antisocial behaviour. I hope that the councils will be able to protect that funding, but I am not confident that they will be fully able to do so. On top of the cuts that we are discussing today, Liverpool’s police force and others around the country will therefore lose further funding for some of the important partnership work that they do on tackling antisocial behaviour.
I urge the Government to think again, and I urge Home Office Ministers to press the Treasury to give policing and law and order the priority that the Government have given schools and the national health service. Voters—our constituents—would expect us to give the police service that priority, and I hope that in the light of today’s debate, the Government will do so.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
A big meeting is happening in my constituency today. The Staffordshire police authority is meeting to discuss the proposals for the future of nine police stations across the force area. In “plain speak”, at some point in the future, some of those stations could close, including one in Rugeley in the heart of my constituency. Chief Constable Mike Cunningham and the chairman of the police authority, David Pearsall, have stated that Staffordshire police have made no final decision to close any particular station in the county. Crucially, they have also said that they will close no stations unless and until alternative bases have been found within the localities concerned.
That reassessment of resources is doubtless owing in part to the Minister’s announcement, and it is worth Government Members remembering that these are not cuts of choice, but cuts to correct overspending by Labour in the boom years, which has left this country with one of the biggest deficits in the world. I did not come into politics to cut police numbers, having worked with the police for many years before becoming a Member of Parliament, but the reality is that when we are spending £120 million every day just to service the interest on our debt, something has to give.
It is also worth remembering that during the election campaign, the then Home Secretary declined to guarantee police numbers or individual police stations. When the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was shadow Home Secretary, he agreed with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—an independent body—that £1 billion efficiency savings could be made without hitting the front line. However, I wonder whether he knew how that would have come about. When he came before the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I asked him whether he thought it would be better if the police spent more time on patrol than they spend on paperwork. He responded:
“I think that is a too simplistic question for me to give a sensible answer”.
Perhaps in her winding-up speech the new shadow Home Secretary will give us a sensible answer to that short, simple question, which her husband failed to answer.
The changes in police stations in Staffordshire are not just about saving money; they are also about changing shift patterns. Proposals for briefing response teams at fewer locations from April 2011 are currently being considered. That is an independent operational matter designed to improve the briefing process of sergeants, and to improve communications and intelligence sharing. It follows from that operational decision that some of the nine stations under review may become underused. Even if that happens, it would not automatically mean that any of those stations would close.
However, it could mean Staffordshire police beginning to share buildings with partner agencies such as schools, church halls, libraries and shops. In fact, the police already share a base in Stafford with a Territorial Army recruiting base. I have opened an office in a former shop in Cannock town centre with a no-appointments-necessary culture. People can drop into the “MP help zone”, as it is known locally, any time from 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, to get help with their problems. Most of my staff—three of the four people whom I employ—work in the help zone rather than down here in Westminster, helping local people who come through the door with their problems. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their important work.
Other people also use the help zone, including local charities, voluntary groups, schools and—guess what?—the police. The police use it for surgeries with local people, to organise neighbourhood watches and as a general base. Is that not the model for the future, with police in existing locations in the community such as shops, supermarkets, MPs’ offices, libraries and schools, rather than in underused old police buildings, which are increasingly expensive to run?
The nine stations under review cost £1 million a year to run. How could that money be better spent on the front line—on officers on patrol, or on specialist officers to deal with domestic violence and child protection, rather than simply on bricks and mortar? Why not look to use cheaper, more front-line locations for use by the police as a front-desk base and a home for neighbourhood officers, and release the money for more police on our streets?
I pay tribute to Staffordshire police force, which is one of the most forward-looking forces in this country. As I said earlier, it has committed to retaining all police officers in neighbourhood teams and front-line staff, rather than wedding itself to a public service housing estate. The aim of this Government is to cut bureaucracy, and to enable the police to be crime fighters, not form writers. It is not the size of the work force that counts, but how it is deployed. It is not the number of police stations in Staffordshire that matters, but keeping police embedded in the community, visible and accessible, with bases that do not cost more than they need to. Without more effective deployment, modernisation of shift patterns and improved productivity, the number of local police officers engaged in local policing can still increase, despite cuts overall.
Labour has the brass neck to criticise the police grant settlement announced today, but it was its mishandling of the economy that brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy, so that we are paying £120 million a day to service the interest on our debt. That money is going to foreign investment bankers to pay for their own police services, rather than ours. But we have brought this country back from the brink. If the exam question today is “How do we maintain a visible police presence even while we have to cut police spending?” the answer is that, with barely one 10th of the police available on the streets at any one time, we know that there is room to make them more visible, more available and more effective as crime fighters.
The years of top-down bureaucratic accountability have broken the relationship between the police and the public. The police are not responsive enough to the public, and the public do not trust enough in the police. That is not the police’s fault; it is the truth of Labour’s legacy. I want to take this opportunity to thank every officer in Staffordshire for everything that they do to keep us safe, day in and day out. This Government supports them, despite the dreadful economic legacy. With our reforms and their hard work and bravery, we will not let Labour’s mishandling of the economy put our communities in danger.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, especially as cuts in policing will impact so greatly on my constituents. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) about how Merseyside police force is heavily reliant on funding from central Government, and I shall reiterate some of the important points that he made.
Some 82% of the force’s budget comes from the formula grant. Only the City of London, Northumbria and West Midlands forces are more reliant on formula grant funding. Can the Minister explain to the people of Liverpool why the real-terms percentage cut facing Merseyside in the 2011-12 financial year is 5.8%, while Surrey— which receives only 51% of its funding from central Government—is receiving a cut of just 3.7% in real terms?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said to the Liverpool Echo on October 15 last year:
“The priority is...helping police officers working on the front line.”
Merseyside police chief constable, Jon Murphy, has said that his force is doing, and will do, everything it can to maintain front-line policing. In fact, since 2004 Merseyside police have made maximising police numbers on the streets a priority. As a result of rigorous efficiency savings, which have been recognised nationally by the Department, and reinvestment in frontline policing, Merseyside police have increased police numbers by hundreds of officers. But we are very concerned that the Government have made no allowances for the extensive efficiency savings already made, before cutting the formula grant so harshly. It will now be impossible to maintain front-line police levels when Merseyside police will see real-terms funding cuts of 7% in 2011-12 and 8.8% in 2012-13.
Merseyside police are having to cut 200 police officers and 80 police staff by March of this year. In addition, a moratorium on police recruitment is continuing until 2012, and this will result in roughly another 200 police officers going in that financial year. That means that Merseyside police will lose close to 10% of its police officers by March 2012. Tough choices have already had to be made, including the closure of the dedicated antisocial behaviour unit.
To substantiate those savage cuts, the Policing Minster has said that there is no simple link between police numbers and crime levels. However, I would like to bring to his attention a number of studies that contradict that. A study of crime rates and police numbers across Europe published on 7 January by the think-tank Civitas—I mention Civitas because it is a think-tank that the Government are normally inclined to listen to—suggests that there is indeed a clear link. Using the most recent data from the “European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics”, Civitas compared the number of police officers per 100,000 of the population and recorded offences per 100,000 of the population. Civitas said that the data suggest
“an association between police officers per head of population and crimes per head. A nation with a larger proportion of police officers is somewhat more likely to have a lower crime rate. A nation with fewer police is more likely to have a higher crime rate.”
However, that is not the only study to suggest such a link.
Luciana Berger
Having spent a lot of time meeting the Merseyside police authority, I know that the vast proportion of its funding is taken up by staffing costs, which are a massive element. I accept that other factors can contribute to efficiency savings, but when such a high proportion of the funding goes on staffing, there are only so many efficiency savings that can be made. Indeed, a number of other studies have confirmed the link. A study published in The British Journal of Criminology in 1999, a 2005 study by the university of Cambridge and, more recently, a study last year by the university of Birmingham all evidenced the link between higher policing levels and lower crime rates. Civitas concluded by saying:
“Members of the public are at greater risk of crime in the coming year.”
I know that it is not just academics who are deeply concerned about the effect that the cuts will have, because my constituents have told me that they are, too. I recently conducted a survey in my constituency, and was astounded by the number of responses that I received—more than 800. Some 77% of those respondents told me that they were concerned about the effect that a reduction in police numbers would have on the policing of their neighbourhoods. The Minister might not see a simple link between the cuts and people’s safety in their communities, but I do, and most importantly, so do my constituents. It is time the Minister came clean and admitted what we all know: that these reckless cuts will take police off our streets and make our communities less safe. I urge him to think again.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
It is worth reminding ourselves and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—after her, if I may say so, commendably feisty speech—that public spending constraint in this country is inevitable, because of record debt and record peacetime borrowing. The police services of this country cannot be exempt from the tough decisions that the Government make. Frankly, a Government who did not make those decisions would not be worthy of the name.
The police grant report before us shows that central Government funding for policing will fall by 20% in real terms by 2014-15. If the precept rises that are forecast in the Office for Budget Responsibility report to 2014-15 take effect—we have no reason to think that they will not—the real-terms cut will be 14%. In considering those stark figures, we should also have regard to two statistics. The first is that there was a 5% increase in police numbers between 2004 and 2009. In 2004, when there were 5% fewer police officers, I do not recall the world or the ceiling caving in.
We also know that police services in this country since 1997 have been incredibly well resourced. I must pay a debt of honour to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was my opposite number when I was the shadow Policing Minister. He was part of a Labour Home Office that invested in the police service over the years, and from 1997 there was a 20% real-terms increase in policing. I do not recall our ever voting against those measures on police grants. So let us recall that a huge amount of money has been put into the police service in recent times.
I should like to place on record what the Suffolk police authority is receiving this year, compared with previous years. The Home Office principal formula police grant in 2008-09 was £40.2 million. In 2009-10, it was £41.5 million. The figure for 2010-11 is £42.8 million, and for 2011-12, the first year of this grant settlement, it is £45.9 million. It is forecast to fall in 2012-13 to £42.8 million for the county of Suffolk. The total formula grant, which includes moneys from the Department for Communities and Local Government settlement, was £69.2 million in 2008-09, rising to £71 million in 2009-10, to £72.7 million in 2010-11 and to £73.2 million in 2011-12. The total formula grant for policing in the county of Suffolk will fall to £68.3 million in 2012-13.
I will meet the chief constable of Suffolk, Simon Ash, shortly to discuss how those numbers will impact on policing on the ground. Here, today, we need to ask ourselves what Ministers are going to be able to do to ensure that these funding constraints do not undermine crime prevention and detection. In short, how will law-abiding citizens be kept safe from crime and from the fear of crime? The answer must be that the police will have to do more with less, and there should be scope for that.
Again, I pay tribute to the previous Labour Government to the extent that they managed to increase the number of police posts to 147,000—a record in this country’s history. Sadly, however, they did not ensure that those officers spent more time on patrol. I will not repeat the statistic from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford used earlier. Instead, I will use one that the hon. Member for Gedling gave me when I was shadowing him. He told me that patrol officers themselves—not all police officers, and not CID—spent an average of 14% of their time on patrol. That was the statistic at the time of the last general election. Most of my constituents would find that not only utterly unbelievable but utterly unacceptable.
I am not going to lay the blame for that on the previous Labour Administration. The problem of police bureaucracy has been going on for a lot longer than that. This bureaucratic mindset is certainly not the fault of police officers, who, in my experience, especially of Suffolk constabulary, are professionals dedicated to protecting the public from harm. It is the fault of the many-headed hydra of bureaucracy, with its so-called police “doctrine”, paperwork, process and systems, that has been building up over decades. It embeds a risk-averse culture, and it stifles any can-do approach in policing.
Bureaucracy is wasting police time. I contend that, if we are to ask the police to do more with less, we have to take an axe to the bureaucracy and mean it. Unfortunately, under successive Governments of both political stripes, Ministers have too often reached for the political rhetoric of “a bonfire of regulations” and so forth. Rarely has that rhetoric been followed up with tough ministerial action to repeal unnecessary secondary legislation and unnecessary primary legislation to allow the police to get on with the job.
If we are to ask the police to do more with less, it seems incumbent on the Government of the day to reduce the burden on ordinary, hard-working police constables—an issue that has implications for the police officer numbers debate. Commenting recently on the spending reductions that were in prospect under the previous Government as much as they are under the present one, Chief Superintendent Steve Hartley of the Bolton force in Lancashire said:
“We have got to be clear—success isn’t just founded on numbers. It’s how we use people. This is not just about cuts. It’s about how we get our officers in the right places at the right time for the right reasons.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) suggested, counting the number of police officers in uniform is not a realistic measure, in the current climate, of what constitutes good and effective law and order, or good and effective policing. Surely, as a matter of logic—I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, who is an extremely bright parliamentarian and understands numbers—it is not beyond the wit of man or all of us in the House to understand that what counts is the number of visible police hours delivered by a constabulary, not just the uniformed officers it has. If one hour out of every seven of a patrol officer’s time is spent on patrol, surely we can agree that, in principle, that one hour could be increased to two, three or even four hours if we cut the bureaucracy on the police.
The role of Ministers comes into play here. That bureaucracy cannot be cut by the Police Federation or by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and it certainly cannot be cut by the police constable on the street. It has to come from the top. Bureaucracy reduction must come, in the first instance, from Policing Ministers.
Since the general election, I have heard that 800,000 police hours have been saved by the current Government as a result of the abolition of the stop and account form and the streamlining of stop-and-search procedures. That is a paltry amount if we realise that there are more than 147,000 police officers—we have got to do better than that. I would be grateful if the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice set my mind at rest on this point in his concluding speech.
Two reports by Jan Berry were commissioned by the previous Labour Government—quite sensibly, as she is a well-respected and intelligent former chair of the Police Federation, which had representation on her working body, as did ACPO, members of the public, clever civil servants and others. The task was to produce a list of measures to reduce bureaucracy and red tape on our hard-working, front-line police officers. I would like to rattle through some of the bigger ticket items that struck me as important, on which I believe we should take action. I am citing from the list of conclusions in the final report produced by her reducing bureaucracy taskforce, which said:
“Consider evaluation of the Modernising Charging Pilots with a view to rolling out improved arrangements where charging decisions are taken by the appropriate person according to the complexity and seriousness of offence.”
My right hon. Friend the Minister has done some work on that, as indeed have I. The idea was that we should look again at the statutory charging regime that the previous Government introduced in 2004, and establish whether a charging sergeant could charge people with more offences in the “triable either way” category without the need for an automatic reference to the Crown Prosecution Service beforehand.
It is a thorny issue. We can see the logic behind the introduction of statutory charging—it was intended to reduce the number of cracked trials and discontinuances, which were extremely expensive for the Courts Service and for Government generally—but there is a definite sense that it has reduced the rapidity with which charging sergeants in custody suites can charge someone who is pretty likely to plead guilty, having been caught red-handed. We do not need sergeants in custody suites hanging around waiting for the CPS. All too few police stations have a CPS lawyer on site to give a quick and simple instruction or approval to the sergeant in question; most do not benefit from that luxury.
The second suggestion by Jan Berry’s team that struck me, because I have some experience of it as well, was that we should remove the requirement to complete disclosure schedules—which must be written out laboriously by uniformed officers because that is what is provided by the relevant primary legislation, although we all know that they must be checked by the CPS eventually in any case—prior to first hearing in the magistrates court. It was also suggested that we should consider shifting the trigger point for more serious offences in the Crown court to the point at which a not guilty plea is entered.
Another hardy annual is, of course, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000— “the grim RIPA”, as it is sometimes called—and the way in which it is applied to relatively routine direct surveillance operations. For instance, a police constable may wish to carry out surveillance of a supermarket car park because he has reasonable grounds for believing that a great deal of breaking and entering is taking place. Some police forces, amazingly—although not all—interpret the RIPA guidance and the statutory codes as meaning that a constable must obtain a RIPA written authorisation from his superiors, which can be extremely time-consuming, before he can go to the car park and hide behind a wall to see whether any villains are going to start breaking into cars. We must do something about that kind of ridiculous approach to applying RIPA and observing the statutory codes. One option would be to rewrite the codes. The hon. Member for Gedling said that he was interested in that option. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that action is being taken in regard to RIPA and similar procedures.
Let us talk about this. Let us tell the police officers on the ground what we are doing for them: what the House of Commons is doing to cut the nonsensical amount of bureaucracy under which they labour. They have had enough, the public have had enough, I have had enough, and I am sure that the Minister has had enough—not of what I am saying, but of the ridiculous, endless use of rhetoric and the absence of action. Let us see the Home Office get a grip.
The next issue that I want to raise has been discussed with me by the esteemed Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). At the beginning of 2009, there were four pilot schemes in Leicestershire, the west midlands, Staffordshire and Surrey. I do not want to be too “anoraky” about the subject, but the gist of the objective was to slim down the crime and incident recording part of the duty of a police officer who arrests someone for, say, shoplifting in a store. Could not the information simply be written on a side of A4, or the equivalent on a hand-held device? It would be useful to know whether those pilots have been rolled out to every single police force in the country; and, if not, what powers does the Minister have to ensure that that is done? On many occasions, I have been wearily told that this is a matter for chief constables. The time has come for a bit of centralisation that works, in order to ensure that police forces adopt sensible common-sense procedures to reduce bureaucracy.
One key element of reducing bureaucracy and saving police time—so that officers can spend more time on patrol, apart from anything else—is getting rid of the double or treble keying of information. That is the phenomenon by which sometimes a single piece of information, such as a suspect’s address, name or date of birth, has to be keyed into different forms even if they are online because of the incompatibility of certain IT systems. It is all very easy to say, “Well, let’s just get better IT,” but the fact is that this is a very difficult and complicated issue. There are also huge resource implications in junking legacy systems, and although having one national computer system might speed things up in theory, it is not really an idea of this world. I would be grateful if the Minister gave a short answer to the question of what we are doing about having a national set of police forms available on one IT platform.
Reducing bureaucracy is the most important thing this House and Government can do to ensure the money set out in this grant goes further and is spent in a smarter way. But there is another area that should also be addressed: the general efficiency agenda, which my right hon. Friend the Minister spoke about so compellingly and, I know, from a deep well of knowledge. I just want to strike a note of caution. Having worked in the Treasury under my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and having also done the policing job as a shadow Minister in the previous Parliament, I got rather tired of the alphabet soup of consultants from PWC, KPMG and Deloitte who would regularly—and for huge sums of money, so far as I could work out—pile into a constabulary, do a report stating the mind-numbingly obvious about how the police could speed things up, and then promptly decamp. The police might follow the recommended procedures for a year or two, but the lessons they had been taught by these highly paid consultants were often forgotten, and even if not forgotten were not able to deliver the serious efficiency gains of the magnitude my right hon. Friend the Minister is talking about in the context of this settlement. We need smarter procurement, shared back-office services and, most importantly, mandated collaboration.
In concluding, I want to ask the Minister two final questions that are key to those of us who want this police grant to represent value for money so we get the most bang for our buck. First, I echo a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) about police authorities and chief constables needing to do the right thing by getting on with collaborating to save money and to squeeze efficiencies out of their budgets. In my experience—and history tells us this, too—the likelihood is that they are not going to do that if left to do so on an ad hoc basis. Therefore, when the Minister starts mandating, will he also consider imposing financial penalties on police authorities that do not mandate and do not deliver police efficiencies?
My final and most important plea is this: if we are to be taken seriously as a Government who are keen to achieve our goals, for public interest reasons and because we want the police to spend more time on patrol and less time behind their desks, we have to show that we are serious about tackling bureaucracy. Will the Minister undertake to produce an annual report to Parliament setting out the procedures, forms and processes he has abolished with an estimate by each item of the number of police hours saved as a result of those cuts in bureaucracy? I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity to use mandated collaboration and attach penalties to it, and to make a report to Parliament telling us how many police hours he has saved each year he has been the Minister, and I hope he is the Minister for a very long time.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), and given the risk of having the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) make throat-cutting signs at me, as well, I will try to be as brief as possible; we started off talking about police cuts, but I think we will soon have cuts to this debate. We have heard excellent speeches and I am sure that the House, eager to get on to the next business, will not want me to detain it for too long on this subject.
This is a very important subject, however, and I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, who made a thoughtful and eloquent speech. It was right for him to praise the work of the previous Government, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and the fact that there was such investment in the police service. He was right to praise them for the amount of money they spent, which has resulted, of course, as he then told us, in the economic problem that is affecting the country, and the need, in this Government’s view, to try to cut that expenditure.
What was important about the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds is that he concentrated on the bread-and-butter issues that sometimes elude us when we discuss these matters in the House. Front-Benchers are rightly concerned about numbers; indeed, the police grant debate is getting very much like a debate on immigration, in which Front-Benchers rightly concentrate on numbers. However, to the public, the real issue is, how does this affect them in their constituencies? How does it affect the local police force? Are they going to get less of a service than they had before the suggested changes?
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), whom we in the Home Affairs Committee greatly miss, has his own version of dealing with these cuts. He has set up a help zone, so if anyone needs a policeman, they do not necessarily have to go to the local police station; they can visit the hon. Gentleman’s staff. I am glad he paid tribute to his staff, because the number of calls they get will probably increase as a result of his contribution today.
Chief constables have rightly taken up the challenge set by this Government, and their tone has changed enormously since the proposals were announced. Certainly, the tone of the chief constable of Manchester, in his latest press release of 9 February, is quite different from the one he adopted before, when he lamented the number of police officers who would be taken off his payroll. Now he is saying that he welcomes the need for collaboration; indeed, I think he said in the final sentence of his press release that he was “upbeat” about the cuts. Of course, that contrasts with what he has said before, and certainly contrasts with the quotes given to this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who has quoted other chief constables who are very concerned. I am not sure whether it is because one chief constable is starting off their career and another is ending theirs; but the fact is that they are in a very difficult position.
The Minister is going to have to accept that, during his term as Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice—the Select Committee has always found him extremely helpful and courteous in providing us with information—there are going to be fewer police officers. It is difficult for him to say that, and certainly difficult for someone like me, who, in debates such as this in 23 years in this House, has always expected Conservative Ministers and shadow Ministers—and, indeed, Liberal Democrats—to ask for more police officers, rather than fewer. However, fewer officers is the inevitable consequence, and whether the figure is the 10,000 talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the smaller figure mentioned by the Government—we do not have a precise figure from them—or the 20,000 referred to by the Police Federation, the fact is there will be fewer police officers.
This is, therefore, a big challenge, which is why I welcome what the Minister said about procurement.
Mr Campbell
As if I would. My right hon. Friend talks about the work of his Committee. The Minister said that although the damping mechanism was applied this time, it may not be in the future, at a cost of a further £30 million of cuts to Northumbria police. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to seek to work very closely with the Government should those changes to that formula and mechanism ever come to fruition?
Keith Vaz
The Select Committee is always keen to work with the Government. I do not wish to prejudge the report on police finances that we will be publishing in a fortnight’s time. The Minister gave good evidence to the Committee, providing some interesting figures, and the House will have to wait for that report to see what members of the Committee have had to say.
The Minister is right to focus on procurement. He is also right to say that 80% of the budget relates to staffing, but that does not mean that we should not examine the issue of procurement. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is not in his place, talked about this issue, and Essex and Kent police, along with other police authorities, are working together. One of the real questions for the previous Government is why we had 13 years of record expenditure but perhaps not the challenges that ought to have been made by Ministers about how the money was spent—that is not a criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. I am not saying that the money was misspent, but it is important to examine what happened to that expenditure.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds discussed bureaucracy. I think that he will find agreement on that issue across the whole House but, as he said, we tend to talk about these things but what really matters is implementation. That brings me to my third and penultimate point, which relates to the new landscape of policing. I say to the Minister that we do not yet have a narrative on crime and crime reduction from this Government. We have had some ambitious plans. The Select Committee has never worked so hard to keep up with the number of changes that the Government are envisaging, first with the police and crime commissioners, then with changes on police financing and then on the new landscape of policing. However, we needed to have some kind of a template before we embarked on those major changes.
We know that the Government want to abolish the Serious Organised Crime Agency and that the National Policing Improvement Agency is going to go, but it should have been up to the NPIA to give leadership to local police forces on procurement. What is going to happen now? It seems that individual forces will be charged for access to the databases of the new national crime agency. What worries me about the budget is that that has not been factored in. It is vital that we know what extra charges will fall on local police forces as a result of the creation of the national crime agency.
My final point is that whatever budgets a local police authority puts in place, a police and crime commissioner will be elected. As the House knows, the previous Government changed their position on the election of members of police authorities. Now that the Government have decided that this is what they want to do, people should allow police and crime commissioners the opportunity to manage the local police force. However, they will be inheriting a budget that has been set by a previous police authority, and the demands from the newly elected police and crime commissioners for more police officers will be much more important to the Government than even the demands from Labour Members.
So there is still much work to be done on the landscape of policing and I do not think we can accept the current situation as being the end. Many right hon. and hon. Members, including some from Liverpool and Staffordshire, and the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bury St Edmunds, have pointed out that there will be fewer officers, and that does mean a reduction in service. How local police forces deal with that depends on the leadership of Ministers, which I hope will be forthcoming.
Nick Herbert
With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the points that hon. Members have made. First, I have listened to the points made by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and I understand the implications for forces that raise less money from local council tax payers. I have explained why the decision we took was fair, I have said that we will continue to discuss these issues and the impacts on forces, and I am happy to have a meeting.
I always pay attention to the views of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I believe we have set out in clear terms how the police landscape must change, but his remarks will no doubt move me to make a further speech on the issue, a copy of which I will of course send to him, to clarify the position. I draw his and the House’s attention to the speech I gave to the City Forum two weeks ago when I set out in terms how the savings that we need to achieve could be made.
I commend the speeches of my hon. Friends, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who admonished the House about the drive to reduce bureaucracy. I took every word he said seriously. The Government will say more about this and we are driving this issue, as is the leadership of the police service. We have made progress but there is more to do. I shall write to my hon. Friend regarding his additional points about how we should secure the very important reductions in the bureaucratic burden on the police.
I particularly welcomed the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who has had to leave the Chamber. They focused on how resources are deployed rather than just on the amount of money.
Both sides, including the Opposition, admit that police funding has to be cut, so both sides must recognise that that must mean the overall police work force will fall. What is totally disreputable about the Opposition’s attack is that they would cut funding and they know that that would mean a smaller work force, but they still mounted that political attack. The public will see through it. In dismissing the finding in the HMIC report that police availability and visibility is too low, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) shows that she is new to the job and has homework to do. The report says:
“The fact is that general availability, in which we include neighbourhood policing and response, is relatively low.”
She should pay attention to the inspectorate’s recommendations rather than dismissing them so lightly after just a few weeks in her job.
Yvette Cooper
Will the Minister withdraw his claim that the 11% figure was entirely due to Labour’s red tape, as opposed to the fact that some police officers are on night shift or late shift and that some of them are doing work on the drugs force, organised crime and a whole series of other things that are not included in that 11%?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Lady should start quoting people accurately. I made no such claim. Let me read the second part of what the inspectorate said in the same paragraph:
“Several factors have combined to produce this ‘thin blue line’ of which shift patterns, risk management, bureaucracy and specialisation are the most significant.”
Visibility and availability are too low, they can be improved and she is foolish to dismiss that report.
Yvette Cooper
On that point, will the Minister look again at the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in which he said the figure was because of Labour’s red tape, and will he withdraw it?
Nick Herbert
It is, in part, because of Labour’s red tape that visibility is too low. The right hon. Lady should understand that and should not dismiss the inspectorate’s report. The situation could be improved by dealing with all these issues.
The Opposition are in an untenable position, because they would cut police funding and they know that that would mean a smaller police work force.
Question put,
Local Government Finance
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
19:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 197 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2011-12 (House of Commons Paper No. 748), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this we shall discuss the following motion:
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2011-12 (House of Commons Paper No. 774), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Mr Pickles
Over recent weeks, my coalition colleagues and I have had many conversations with local government. We have spoken to individual authorities, the Local Government Association, London Councils and other representatives, and let me say how much I respect the mature and responsible attitude that all have taken throughout those discussions. They know that we are sailing in choppy economic waters, and that cutting Labour’s massive budget deficit is the responsible and the right thing to do—and many have planned ahead.
Only the most blinkered could have failed to see tough times coming. The House will recall that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said in March 2010 that if Labour were to remain in power we would see spending cuts “deeper and tougher” than those of the 1980s—I suppose that that is one Labour pledge we are able to deliver—so let us not pretend that anyone thought that we could spend, spend, spend indefinitely.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
Even if the Secretary of State sets the context in terms of a cuts agenda for local government, why have this Government chosen to hit most harshly local authorities such as my own, the fourth most deprived in the country, while not inflicting the same level of cuts on authorities that are politically from a coalition background and socially in a much more advantaged position?
Mr Pickles
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come to that point in a moment. If I do not satisfy him, I will happily give way to him again.
Thanks to Labour, the nation’s credit card is maxed out. The longer we leave it before we start to pay it off, the worse it will be and the more we will have to pay. Unless we tackle Labour’s borrowing, interest—just the interest—on its toxic legacy of debt will hit £70 billion a year by 2014-15. That is more than we currently raise from council tax, business tax, stamp duty and inheritance tax combined.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentions the business rate. Could he tell the House how much, in billions, the Treasury contribution will be in the coming year over and above the yield from the business rate, which has to be redistributed to local government in any case?
Mr Pickles
Last time we discussed this, the hon. Gentleman made some interesting suggestions about the level of the business rate with regard to the surplus. I am happy to confirm to him what I said last time: that the process of distribution from the Government is based largely on the uniform business rate, and any surplus—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that the settlement is made within a defined period and that business rate income goes up and down. The Treasury puts money in and takes money out according to the buoyancy of the business rate. The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished Member of the House who is very familiar with these matters, and he should know these things.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
He is right honourable, and he knows a lot more about it than you.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to correct me; I beg the right hon. Gentleman’s pardon. He is indeed a very distinguished gentleman, and of course he knows a lot more than a lot of people in this House, including, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is obvious from my hon. Friends’ reaction that I do not need to put that to a vote.
Mr Pickles
I will give way in a few moments.
The phasing of the settlement will be challenging. Councils can choose how they respond. Some have chosen to wring their hands and say that it is all too hard, or to play politics with front-line services. Others have chosen to step up and to protect vital local services, reducing every trace of waste, protecting the most vulnerable and reforming services to deliver better results for less.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman must pay more attention. When I say that I will give way in a few moments, that is exactly what I mean, but there is a queue, and he is a little way behind.
Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster councils are merging their back offices to save £35 million. West Norfolk is freezing council tax and car park charges, as well as councillors’ allowances. Reading borough council has decided not to cut but to increase funding for voluntary groups. We have heard today that Ribble Valley borough council has also decided to protect voluntary groups and not to cut front-line services.
I am grateful that many councils have brought the same constructive attitude to discussions about the funding settlement. They have helped us to put the finishing touches to a settlement that is sustainable, fair and progressive. We have focused resources on the most vulnerable communities. We have given more importance to the levels of need within each council. We have grouped councils in four bands. The most dependent on Government funding are seeing proportionately lower falls in grant. The more deprived places will receive far more funding per head than the better-off places. For example, Hackney will receive £1,043 per head and Wokingham will receive just £125 per head. These changes have made the system fairer and more progressive than ever.
Hazel Blears
The Secretary of State knows that I have raised the issue of business rates in this House on a number of occasions. To pursue the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the business rate take will be £24.9 billion for 2010-11 and £26 billion for 2011-12. The Secretary of State has distributed £3.5 billion less in 2010-11 and will distribute £7 billion less in 2011-12. Is he saying that the OBR forecasts are out of sync by £3.5 billion and £7 billion? Surely the rising trend in business rates means that there is more money in the pot. If he distributed more money, we would not have to have the cuts that we face.
Mr Pickles
I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady. What she needs to understand is that two figures have been suggested—one by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Following those figures, we decided to move some things from ring-fenced grants into the general grant. That accounts for the difference between the two sizes. With regard to the level of potential surplus, there is a possible notional surplus in 2013 and 2014. As I explained to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), what happens is that within the total sum available for grant, if there is a surplus, all is redistributed. However, as happened under the right hon. Lady’s Government and under previous Governments, the amount in the revenue support grant is reduced on a compensatory basis, because the level of the total settlement is fixed. There is no difference; it is just a different way of calculating.
Mr Pickles
How can I turn down the hon. Gentleman? He has been up and down like Tigger.
Ian Austin
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. Nobody disputes that savings have to be made by local authorities. [Interruption.] Well, nobody does. The Government cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that we were planning cuts slightly smaller than those that they are imposing, and on the other they say that we were not planning any cuts at all. I am not sure what their argument is.
On the sorts of cuts that local authorities are making, is the Secretary of State aware that the axe hangs over Dudley’s benefits shop, which is helping people who have been made redundant during the recession and hard-pressed home owners who face the risk of repossession to sort out their finances? It seems an utterly ludicrous decision when it costs £300,000 a year to run and brings £2 million into the local economy, of which £1.5 million is spent on supporting local businesses. In the light of what he said about local authorities making inappropriate cuts that target the most vulnerable, will he join me in pleading with Dudley council not to close the benefits advice shop?
Mr Pickles
I feel a certain degree of camaraderie and fraternal friendship with the hon. Gentleman, because unlike his party’s Front Benchers, he has said that Labour’s cuts would have been just slightly less than those that we are presenting. I think that is probably true, but the challenge facing local government means that just a couple of million quid would not make all the difference. There are very challenging circumstances.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Pickles
In a moment—I need to respond to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) first.
Let us consider a number of local authorities. Some have been talking about thousands of redundancies. I do not want to appear partisan, but Sheffield is talking about 250. Sunderland, a Labour council, is not planning percentage cuts in its Supporting People provision. Walsall is not planning to make an overall cut in its voluntary sector funding. It is possible to deal with the situation.
Mr Pickles
In a moment.
The hon. Member for Dudley North has to understand that these are local decisions. We have ensured that there are sufficient funds to protect the vulnerable, but ultimately local councils have to make local decisions.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we are hearing a confused argument from the Opposition, but that it seems to involve a spending commitment of about £7 billion? That money would surely have to be made up through about 2p on income tax, would it not?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend is of course perfectly right. The Opposition seem to think that it is magic money, but it would actually come out of people’s pockets through business rates or income tax. The reason why we are in this position is that the guilty people on the Labour Benches allowed things to get out of hand.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend go into some detail for the benefit of the House about his commitment to the vulnerable through the transition grant allocations? I have had a cursory look at them, and they seem reasonably generous and seem to take account of the need to look after some of the most vulnerable parts of the country.
Mr Pickles
We have done three significant things. First, we moved the relative needs threshold to 83% from 73%, which makes a considerable difference and is far more than the Labour Government ever offered poorer communities. We then divided up authorities based on their level of funding, from the most dependent on grant to the least dependent, and ensured that the most dependent received smaller cuts. Then we managed to find an additional transitional amount to ensure that no authority loses more than 8.9%. I will have a further announcement to make about that.
Joan Walley
My constituents do not want the House to make politics of what is happening. Everybody understands the situation in respect of the cuts as a whole, but in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, where we have deprivation and people out of work, we have made representations to the Secretary of State and his Ministers to say that we want time: we want time to plan how we can keep what is most important. This finance settlement gives us no encouragement whatever that this is anything other than the Government blaming local councils for what is happening.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady and her councils were given quite a lot of time. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, made it clear that changes were going to be made, and a number of the most vulnerable areas were hit by the fact that it was made clear that the working neighbourhoods fund was going to end in March this year. It seems to me that a number of councils did not make any provision for that and blithely assumed that the money would continue, despite the fact that the Labour Chancellor made it perfectly clear that it was ending. Ladies and gentlemen on the Labour Benches who cheered his Budget announcement did not raise any objection at the time.
Mr Pickles
I will give way in a few moments, but I shall make a little progress, if the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee will forgive me.
The changes make the system fairer and more progressive than it has ever been. The second thing that we did is try to marry the need to tackle the deficit with the need to help councils to adapt, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). In December, I said that no council would face more than an 8.9% reduction in spending power and that we would provide a grant to cushion councils that would otherwise have had a sharper fall. Today, we are going further by increasing the transition grant to councils from £85 million to £96 million next year, which means that the average reduction in spending power is just 4.4% and that no council will see a reduction of more than 8.8%.
Let us look at one of the problems that we faced. Concessionary bus travel is a classic example of how the previous Government did things—they made a grand promise without any clue about how it would be funded. Administration of concessionary bus travel under Labour was a shambles. I do not think that councils should have to pay for the misjudgment of the Labour Government, so I am topping up the formula grant by a further £10 million next year to compensate shire districts.
Thirdly, we are committed to protecting local taxpayers. Council tax bills more than doubled under Labour, while front-line services such as bin collections halved. It is only right that we give hard-working families a helping hand.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the sentiments of his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who in writing to Liberal Democrat councillors about the final settlement, says:
“This final settlement certainly does not solve all problems, nor does it add significantly more money into the pot. I know it will still be very disappointing for many councillors.”
Mr Pickles
Of course the settlement is very disappointing, but the Government would not do what we are doing had we not found the nation’s finances in chaos and with a record budget deficit. The only reason that we are doing this is that the right hon. Lady failed to control her party.
Mr Pickles
I would give way to my right hon. Friend, but I feel like I have been persecuting the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.
Mr Betts
The Secretary of State said that this is a matter for local decision, and that there is no need for any council to make cuts to front-line services. Can he name one single council in the country that has so far managed to reach a budget decision without any cuts to front-line services?
Mr Pickles
Yes, I can—Reading and Ribble Valley have done so. We have a list, but the hon. Gentleman is ascribing words to me that I did not say. I said that before authorities touch front-line services, they should look at sharing back offices, chief executives and top offices, move back services and improve procurement. That is what I said. There is a very big difference—right across the country—between councils that have attempted those things and those that have decided to cut deep into public services.
Mr Pickles
I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but then in a few moments I will of course do so for my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey).
Sir Alan Beith
Does the Secretary of State accept that it was almost impossible to introduce the required degree of fairness to areas of low council tax income given the historical settlement that many local authorities, such as Northumberland, have suffered over the years and the financial crisis that faced the country? Do we not need to approach fairness again in a more fundamental review of local government finance?
Mr Pickles
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I certainly hope that this year’s settlement and next year’s are the last ones to be put together on the current corrupt, useless and incomprehensible system. It is the Government’s intention fundamentally to review the local government financial system, and I hope to bring proposals to the House later in the year.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has praised some local authorities for planning ahead for cuts, but he did not mention Manchester, which was planning to make cuts of £50 million. However, because he singled out one of the neediest cities in this country for one of the worst settlements, the council is now having to save £110 million next year and £170 million over two years. When a council has to lop off £39 million from adult services and £45 million from children’s services, how can he say that he is protecting the most vulnerable?
Mr Pickles
There does seem to be a big difference between how Sheffield and other large authorities are going about this, and how Manchester is going about it. The reduction purely in grant is some 15% over the period, but the council is choosing to cut 25%—above and beyond the reduction in grant. But those figures only really stack up if we completely ignore the level of council tax revenue. That is why we are able to say that no authority is receiving a reduction in their spending power of more than 8.8%. That remains an absolute fact, on a measurement that those on the Labour Front Bench urged us to use. The Local Government Association also suggested that measurement, and it is a very sensible way of doing things.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My constituency has some of the most deprived areas anywhere in the region, but for the last eight years we have received among the lowest local government settlements there have been. My local authority has been preparing for the even tougher times we face because of the economic crisis that we were bequeathed. Why does the Secretary of State think that other areas of the country have not?
Mr Pickles
It appears that there are two kinds of authority. There are Conservative and Liberal Democrat authorities that seem to be making a genuine attempt to protect the front line, as are a significant number of Labour authorities, but there are several that are simply grandstanding. They have perhaps made one or two financial mistakes in the past and are seeking to hide them by claiming that the financial settlement is the problem.
Mark Pawsey
My right hon. Friend spoke about the need for councils to control executive salaries. Does he have some words of comfort for Rugby borough council, which has chosen to save £100,000 by not replacing its chief executive and devolving the responsibilities to deputies and the elected leader of the council?
Mr Pickles
Hammersmith and Fulham is obviously the apple of my eye in London, but the decision taken by my hon. Friend’s council is a very sensible one. I am delighted that chief executives have taken a cut in salary, and I am even more delighted that the salaries advertised for chief executives have gone down considerably.
It is only right for hard-working families to be given a helping hand. We are providing an extra £650 million so that local authorities can freeze council tax for a year from April without local services losing out. We give each council that freezes or reduces council tax the equivalent of a 2.5% increase instead. More than 130 councils have already said that they will take this offer and more will follow as they finalise their budgets. No council should think that it can get away with squeezing its residents.
In the long term, local people should have the power to veto excessive council tax rises, but for the time being the Government will use their capping powers to protect them. Today I have laid before the House a written statement explaining the principles that we are using to define what excessive council tax means. An authority will be liable to be capped if it couples an increase in council tax of more than 3.5% with a reduction in its budget requirement of less than 7.5%. However, for most council tax payers, I very much expect this to be largely an academic exercise, because I believe that every local authority will freeze council tax in this difficult period.
The public will be helped in that process by increased transparency. I am pleased to announce to the House that every council in the country has now agreed to publish every amount over £500, so that their council tax payers can judge whether cuts in services or decisions about those services are just. I say “every council in the country”, but I mean “every council in the country with the exception of Nottingham”. The Labour deputy leader in Nottingham says that the council has
“no intention of publishing the data unless it is forced to do so by law.”
He says:
“We have said that we will publish accounts over £500 if it becomes a legal requirement to do so,”
before adding, rather peculiarly:
“We are happy for information to be”
transparent. Well, information cannot be transparent unless it is published. How come every council tax payer in England can look on their council’s website and see how it is spending their money except for those in Nottingham? Is there something peculiar about people in Nottingham that means that they cannot be trusted with that information?
Mr Pickles
I shall give way in a moment, once I have made this point. The right hon. Gentleman is a senior Member of the House, but I would be grateful if he extended me the courtesy of allowing me to make a few points.
The deputy leader of Nottingham city council is a gentleman called Graham Chapman, which is obviously the same name as the late and long-missed member of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”. It seems to me that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) should get on the phone to that gentleman and tell him, as his namesake’s mother did in “Life of Brian”, that he might be the deputy leader of Nottingham city council, but he is a very naughty boy. If it is necessary for me to use the powers that I have to force Nottingham, I will, but why should this process be held back by one obdurate council that simply wants to play politics with transparency?
Hazel Blears
Let me take the Secretary of State back to his assertion that no council will lose more than 8.9% of its grant. Is he not completely ignoring the fact that the poorest authorities get area-based grant? Some 11% of my council’s budget in Salford is ABG, because we are deprived and poor, and we need extra help. Slashing the area-based grant means that our cuts next year will be 15%, which is a massive amount in the first year.
Mr Pickles
I can bring better news to the right hon. Lady, because the figure will not be 8.9%, but 8.8%, which I hope she finds helpful. She arrives at those figures only if she completely ignores the figures for council tax, which are such that we can give her a guarantee that her council’s spending power will not be reduced by more than 8.8%. Because I have enormous respect for her, I shall make just one further point. I thought about this issue seriously, in a situation where money was clearly being reduced, and I came to the conclusion that if I increased relative need, the best way to help authorities such as hers in taking the money down would be to put it into the block grant. That is because the block grant has such a distributive effect. I accept that there is a degree of swings and roundabouts involved, but her authority came out of that process better than it might otherwise have done.
Mr Blunkett
This issue of transparency is absolutely crucial. Is it not a fact that the 8.9% and the distribution of grant took place after the area-based grant—and therefore the specific funding for specific deprivation—had already been taken out?
Mr Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for correcting him: it is not 8.9%; it is 8.8%. We have put some additional sums into the process—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I am sorry that he perhaps did not hear the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I took a view, which I think was correct, that his authority, Sheffield, would have lost out more had we not put those sums into the block grant. He seems to forget that we have moved relative need to 83%.
Thanks to the constructive approach of many councils, we have arrived at a funding settlement for the next two years that is progressive, fair and sustainable. It is important to see this settlement in context. This coalition Government are committed to an historic shift of power and influence. We are seeking to restore real responsibility and authority to councils. We are ending the regional spatial strategies, comprehensive area assessments and local area agreements, and we have made a bonfire of the three-letter acronyms.
The general power of competence in the Localism Bill will give councils confidence to get on with the job. We have already ended grant ring-fencing, with a few exceptions, so that councils can decide for themselves how to spend their money. I am determined that we will continue to push back the tide of bureaucracy, end once and for all the micro-management from Whitehall, and give councils the space to show the ingenuity, ambition and leadership that local people expect. The settlement shows that this coalition Government will not shy away from the tough decisions needed to tackle Labour’s public sector deficit, and we will continue to do everything possible to support local councils as they protect and improve front-line services over the years to come.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
We have heard it all this afternoon. We have heard every possible excuse and cop-out, but we have not heard a single word of apology to the thousands of councillors up and down the country who give up their evenings and weekends, and much else besides, to make their community a better place to live and who are now being forced to implement the Secretary of State’s cuts. We have heard no apology for the fact that this Government have chosen to impose huge front-loaded cuts on local councils the length and breadth of the country. Those cuts will be deeper and faster than those made by almost any other Whitehall Department, and they will fall hardest on the poorest places. They will cost jobs and threaten vital front-line services.
Today the Secretary of State has tried to pull a fast one, but he has not convinced our own Labour councillors, or even many Tory or Liberal Democrat councillors. In fact, I do not think that he has convinced anyone at all. Once again, he has come up with a whole host of reasons why this finance settlement—which, by common agreement, is the worst funding settlement for local government in living memory—is not as bad as it sounds, but he is not fooling anyone.
Over the past few months the Secretary of State and his team have given us reasons why local authorities should not have to tackle difficult decisions about front-line services in their communities. They have told us that there are other ways in which local authorities can make savings. We have heard that councils are sitting on piggy banks with £10 billion-worth of reserves, yet 70% of that money is already reserved for specific projects, so the figure is nowhere near as high as £10 billion.
More to the point, the cuts to local councils go so deep and fall so heavily that three quarters of single-tier and county councils have less in their reserves than the cuts to this year’s funding. Even if they took up the Secretary of State’s suggestion and spent all their reserves trying to mitigate the damage the Government’s cuts have caused, it would still not be enough. And when next year came, councils would face an even worse funding crisis—but this time with no reserves to call on. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
“the economics of the madhouse”.
Those are not my words; they come from a letter from the Conservative leader of Derbyshire county council, Andrew Lewer, who chastised the Secretary of State for peddling “misleading” myths about council reserves. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman likes to talk about bins, but when even his own colleagues tell him that he is talking rubbish, perhaps he should sit up and listen. If he will not listen to them, he should at least take note of his Front-Bench colleagues. However loyally the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) nods his head in agreement this afternoon, we know what he really thinks from a private letter he sent to Liberal Democrat councillors. He freely admits that in some cases the figures quoted by the Department for Communities and Local Government were rejected as inaccurate. As I mentioned earlier, another quote from the letter reveals the Under-Secretary’s disappointment that so little has been put into the pot, despite the representations of his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Another area Ministers have looked at is how to plug the gap by dealing with executive pay. Councils were told that if they could not use their reserves, they could cut executive pay. If they did that, they were told, it would be enough to protect jobs and services. I have made it clear time and time again that local councils have a duty to find the best deal for council tax payers—and that includes ensuring that council executives are not paid over the odds and cutting down the size of management teams at the top of councils. In fact, we have gone further than the Secretary of State’s proposals on pay and transparency in the Localism Bill, and I urge him again to include consultants and contractors hired by local authorities when pay details are published.
The suggestion, however, that simply trimming executive salaries by a few thousand pounds here and there is enough to plug a funding gap of £6.5 billion is just fanciful. If every chief executive of every local authority took an immediate 50% pay cut, it would yield less than 0.5% of the savings that need to be found. Even if the entire senior management team of every council in England reduced salaries by 25% overnight, 97% of the cuts would still need to be made.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not simply a question of excessive pay, but of excessive pay-offs? Nottingham council was mentioned, and a brief piece of research shows that Sallyanne Johnson received a £250,000 pay-off, Michael Frater £230,000, Adrienne Roberts £500,000, and Tim Render £200,000—all in recent times. Will she condemn the administration of Nottingham council for wasting that money?
Caroline Flint
We can all trade examples, so let me provide the hon. Gentleman with one from Hammersmith and Fulham council—one of the Secretary of State’s favourites. Is it acceptable to hire for £1,000 a day a consultant who has already been retired, on a £50,000-a-year pension, on grounds of ill health from another council?
Value for money and accountability for senior pay are important, which is why we supported those elements in the Localism Bill—but we are going further than the Government suggested, and we hope to gain support for that. However, the reality is that for all the grandstanding on this issue, it does not make a dent in the amount that councils have to find to deal with the front-loaded cuts that the Government have chosen to impose on them.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the letter sent by the Under-Secretary to Lib Dem councillors on Stockport council; she will be aware that his postage bill will go down quickly, as Lib Dems are leaving the Lib Dem group because they know the truth about this settlement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State is talking nonsense when he speaks about giving power to local authorities and being fair, because local democracy is, in fact, taking a much bigger cut than his own central Government Department?
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend has made a very good point about the unfairness of the cuts. The Government are passporting the blame on to local councils, and that is not fair. My hon. Friend, like other Labour Members, has long experience of local government that can inform our debate. We are in touch with local government, which is one of the big differences between us and those on the Government Benches.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
The right hon. Lady suggests that cuts in executive pay constitute a mere pinprick in the savings required. Yet according to a press release from Hampshire county council that I received yesterday, the council expects to save some £7 million in executive pay in the current year. That is just shy of 20%—[Interruption.] Opposition Members suggest, in sedentary interventions, that £7 million in a single year may be an unlikely figure, and that may be so, but even if it is over three years—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Even if it is over three years, it still amounts to 7% or 8% of the total savings required. Does the right hon. Lady regard that as insubstantial?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I know that the hon. Gentleman heard me earlier; he clearly saw me. Interventions must be short.
Caroline Flint
I do not know how to follow the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because it is a good example of the grandstanding that has been going on. I should love the hon. Gentleman to send me the figures from Hampshire county council. Seven million pounds a year? I should very much like to see those figures, because I am not sure that they relate only to senior executive pay.
I have made it clear that I am not standing up for those who pay over the odds. [Interruption.] I have made that very clear, as the Minister for Housing and Local Government will see if he consults Hansard. What I am saying is that it is a distraction to suggest that the sort of cuts in executive pay that I have described, whether they involve 50% of chief executives or 25% of the senior management team, can make a significant dent in the savings that councils are having to find.
We are often told that if councils cannot use their reserves and if cuts in executive pay are not enough, they can make their savings by sharing services or merging back-room functions. Let us leave aside the fact that more than 200 councils are already sharing services or facilities, or are planning to do that. If creative service redesign could protect services and stop unnecessary job losses we would support it, as would our local Labour colleagues, but by front-loading the cuts as the Secretary of State has chosen to do, the Government have given councils no choice other than to find immediate savings, which will actually mean cuts in services and jobs.
We have heard a great deal today about Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. When we go beyond the headlines, we find that although those councils will lose more than £50 million in funding this year, savings for this year amount to only £5 million. We can only conclude either that the Secretary of State is so detached from the real world that he does not understand that, or that this is a deliberate tactical attempt to distract attention from the problems created by the Tory-led Government. In either event, councils and the communities that they serve deserve better.
James Morris
Is not one of the remarkable aspects of the settlement the fact that, in these difficult times, the Supporting People grant has been relatively protected by the Secretary of State? He has done precisely what I think the right hon. Lady wants to do, which is to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable. Should not the right hon. Lady be celebrating that?
Caroline Flint
I am not sure that there is anything to celebrate. Whether we are talking about the Supporting People grant or Sure Start, one thing is certain: neither has not been ring-fenced, and therein lies danger. Manchester city council, for instance, faces a 35% cut in its Supporting People grant.
Mr Pickles
I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not want to put an incorrect statement on the record. Will she confirm that the Supporting People fund was not ring-fenced under the Labour Government?
Caroline Flint
Unlike the Secretary of State’s hon. Friends, we put money into the Supporting People grant to support local initiatives. Now councils face cuts in their Supporting People funding, and have no alternatives to the decisions that they are having to make.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I will talk about the myths of Hammersmith and Fulham later if I have the opportunity, but for now may I correct my right hon. Friend by pointing out that £2.9 million is the saving for the three boroughs next year—£500,000 from Hammersmith and Fulham—out of £27 million in total savings? The sum the Secretary of State said the three councils would save when he launched the initiative last October was £100 million. That is the sort of voodoo economics we are dealing with here.
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend always enlightens us as to the true nature of what is happening in Hammersmith and Fulham. Only in the last week we have heard about a building that houses some 30 charities, from which many of the charities are being evicted. I heard only the other day that Hammersmith and Fulham council is so in touch with the big society that refugees from Afghanistan who were seeking support were directed to an Afghan society that happened to be an Afghan hound society. That shows how in touch those people are with the concerns of their residents, and the extent of their knowledge of the charitable and voluntary sector.
Mr Betts
In the last Parliament the Communities and Local Government Committee conducted a report on Supporting People. It accepted the removal of the ring fence, but said that spending on Supporting People should be monitored. Perhaps as a result of that, the day after the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee in December, Westminster city council announced a £1 million cut in its Supporting People services.
Caroline Flint
I always bow to the experience and knowledge of my hon. Friend. This will all come to light in the weeks and months ahead as the budgets are set, and I think we will see that no Members on the Government Benches will stand up for Supporting People. We know that the losses on the ground are affecting people, and the services they have relied on for so long.
As all the excuses have fallen away, and as the reality of the pace and depth of the Government’s cuts hits home, so Ministers’ accusations and attacks on local government have become more desperate and outlandish. The real impact of these cuts is becoming clearer day by day. Some 450 libraries around the country are under threat of closure, including four in the Prime Minister’s constituency, 250 Sure Start centres serving 60,000 families look set to close by the end of this year, and despite all the Secretary of State’s exhortations, because of the cuts he has imposed half a million British home owners have had their weekly bin collections scrapped. As for housing, his cuts in the housing budget mean that, for all the current Government’s criticism of the last Government’s record, once the homes that Labour started building are completed no new social homes at all will be built for the duration of this Parliament.
When 70p out of every pound councils spend goes on staff, it is madness to believe that people will not lose their jobs. The only advice we have from the Government comes from their big society guru, Lord Wei, who this week told council workers to cut their hours and their pay and spend more time volunteering. That will be of little comfort to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who lose their jobs this year. According to Unison, 100,000 people in council, health, police, fire and education services have already been warned their jobs are at risk. The GMB has kept a running tally of the number of workers who have been told their jobs are under threat, and, as of last week, it suggests more than 155,000 posts are at risk.
Let us talk about the organisation that has actually conducted some research in this area: the Local Government Association. It believes that 140,000 council workers will lose their jobs this year. I saw the Minister for Housing and Local Government on TV only last night attempting to argue otherwise, but the LGA’s figures are based on evidence—on research covering 202 councils employing 1.85 million people. The Minister’s arguments are based on the hope that, “If we say something enough times, eventually people will start to believe us.”
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Why is Liberal Democrat-controlled Sheffield city council making only 250 people redundant, yet the figures for Labour-controlled Manchester city council and Liverpool city council are 2,000 and 1,500 respectively? Could it be that the Labour councils are not interested in making proper savings, whereas the Liberal Democrat and Tory councils are?
Caroline Flint
Well, so far as Sheffield is concerned, part of the problem is that the Liberal Democrats are running scared. They have deferred the decisions because they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Sheffield, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not going to work.
I want to say something about back-room staff in local government. Efficient administration: yes, of course we need that, but every organisation needs people in the back-room as well—even the Secretary of State’s Department. It is a pretence to believe that administrative jobs are not necessary. Worst of all is the unfairness. The communities who rely the most on the services that their council provides will be hardest hit. Every time the Government hit the airwaves we are told how progressive this settlement is—but I am afraid that they do not know the meaning of the word. What is fair about the most deprived communities facing cuts four times as deep as those in the most prosperous areas? What is progressive about a finance settlement in which every resident in Hackney loses £180, while people in the Prime Minister’s constituency lose only a fiver? Even Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors know that that is neither fair nor progressive.
The Tory leader of Blackpool council, Peter Callow, told the BBC that this Government had “let down poorer areas”. Perhaps that is why David Faulkner, the Liberal Democrat leader of Newcastle council—the Liberal Democrats’ flagship council in the north-east—agreed that the Secretary of State is
“the worst Secretary of State we have had”.
Perhaps that is why, in a private e-mail sent to Liberal Democrat councillors from the Local Government Association just last week, we learnt that—[Interruption.] I know that the Secretary of State does not want to listen to this. We learnt that
“concerns about the weakness of the Secretary of State have been raised within all three of the main political groups at the LGA and the message has been heard loud and clear by leading figures in the Government. The situation has been likened to having a republican in charge of the monarchy.”
As for the big society, with every day that passes it looks more and more like a big sham. We have heard from Volunteering England, which accused the Government of undermining charities. Last week Liverpool City council had to pull out of the big society pilot because it saw how ridiculous it was for the Government to laud the virtues of the voluntary sector on the one hand, while pulling the rug from underneath it on the other. Just this Monday, Dame Elisabeth Hoodless of Community Service Volunteers warned that the “draconian” cuts to local government were “destroying volunteering”. But as the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon, what does she know? She is only the mother of the big society, the executive director of Britain’s largest volunteering charity.
Up and down the country, as a direct result of the choices of this Government, councils are being forced to cut back funding to community groups and voluntary organisations. If they cannot pick up the reins, who will take responsibility for providing the services that this Government have dismantled?
However, Ministers’ most insidious claim is that councils that have built up good services to help poor, elderly or vulnerable people will deliberately cut those services, rather than bureaucracy, in order to cause suffering for political gain. That is an outrageous slur, and it is beneath the dignity of Ministers to level the claim. It is a sure sign of how empty the Government’s arguments are that they drag out that myth in order to slander the reputations of decent councillors.
The blame for all this lies solely and squarely with this Tory-led Government, because the biggest myth of all is that there is no alternative. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an alternative. We do not deny that there is a deficit and that it needs tackling, but the Government’s decision to eliminate the deficit over this Parliament is a choice, not a necessity. Labour’s plan was to halve the deficit over four years. That would have meant local government cuts, but not cuts as deep as this. The Government’s decision to front-load the cuts, so that the heaviest reductions fall in the first year, is a choice, not a necessity. We would have spread the cuts more evenly over four years, giving councils time to plan where savings could be found. The Government’s decision to skew the funding system so that the poorest councils are hardest hit is a choice, not a necessity. We would have shared the cuts much more fairly, ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders bore the greatest burden. The Government have made their choice, and they must take responsibility for the consequences.
Flush with cash from their chums in the City, this Government may be laughing all the way to the bank, but local councils and the communities they serve are crying out for more help and more time. In every part of the country and in all communities, people are rallying together, standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder, against this Government’s reckless cuts. They are the real big society, and they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast. The teaching assistants, social workers and street cleaners marching for their jobs: they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast. The pensioners occupying their local libraries and clearing the shelves of books: they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast. The families going door to door with petitions to save their local Sure Start centre: they are telling this Government that they are going too far, too fast.
The Government are not listening but we are, and that is why, today, Labour will vote against a local government settlement that reflects none of the concerns of councillors and communities about going too far, too fast. I urge all Members to stand up for their communities and the services they hold dear, and join us in the Lobby tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from previous days. In the Division on the question relating to the financial stabilisation mechanism, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 45, so the Ayes have it. On the question relating to police, the Ayes were 501 and the Noes were 18, so the Ayes have it. On the question relating to taxation of the financial sector, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 223, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the House, but this is on a matter highly relevant to this debate. At Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Prime Minister gave an inaccurate picture about Sure Start funding to this House. He said:
“On Sure Start, the budget is going from £2.212 million to £2.297 million. That budget is going up. That is what is happening.”
There are two problems with that statement. First, those figures do not refer to the Sure Start budget; they refer to the early intervention grant, which pays for 21 separate programmes in addition to Sure Start. Secondly, the budget is not going up. The Prime Minister’s figures compared 2011-12 with 2012-13. If he had compared this year’s budget of £2.483 million with that in 2012-13, he would have found that there is a cash cut of £186 million.
Councils are making some very difficult decisions on these matters right now, and it is only fair to them to put the correct figures on the record and in the public domain. I wonder whether you might ask the Prime Minister to set the record straight, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
That is not a point of order for the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced, and I am sure that he will find other ways to pursue those particular points about statements that have been made in this House. He is right to say that this is a very important debate on the question of local government funding. Perhaps other hon. Members might wish to reflect on what he has said, but we will move on and continue that debate.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I shall keep my comments relatively brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to start by thanking the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for receiving a pre-Christmas delegation from Isle of Wight council. During the meeting, the council accepted that it must play its part in tackling the massive structural deficit left by the Labour party. It also accepted the vast majority of the figures and calculations in the draft local government settlement. The council queried only one point in it with him. The argument was solely about the baseline figure used for local transport and concessionary fares. The council contends that a miscalculation has denied it additional grant of almost £900,000, which obviously has an effect on the council’s overall spending power. The Government say that in 2011-12 Isle of Wight council will have £6 million less to spend than in the current year, whereas the council suggests a figure of £7.5 million.
The Government’s spending power figure covers all the council’s income available for it to spend. That is clearly the best way of presenting the figures: looking at the picture as a whole, rather than taking any single figure in isolation. The council has given me details of the notional figure, the effect of damping, schedule D, the transfer of functions between authorities and the baseline figure that it believes is wrong.
I do not, however, intend to go over all that again. Doubtless the council’s view on all those points was put very eloquently during its meeting with the Minister. Figures can be presented in many ways, and they certainly have been, both on the island and nationally, but I am speaking today because I see the very real distress caused to my constituents at proposals that will affect services they value and the fabric of our life on the island. Among other things, island communities might lose libraries and public lavatories unless, in some cases, those services are taken over by town and parish councils, thus putting up the local precept—the town and parish rates. The changes should have been made separately from the Budget, preferably in the period between last June and December. After all, we won the election in May and there was time to do it then rather than making these changes in a last-minute rush. However, we are where we are, as they say.
I understand that the arguments about the draft settlement report have been considered and that decisions have been made, but the council says that the baseline figure that it says has been miscalculated will affect the settlement for future years. We all know that the complete financial mess the coalition Government inherited from the Labour party is the real problem and that neither councils nor the Government can go on as they have in the past, but I urge the Minister to consider the technical arguments that Isle of Wight council put to him. He and the Secretary of State should consider whether those arguments have merit and, most importantly, whether my constituents are losing out because of the way in which the figures have been calculated. I hope that the Minister can assure me that if there is any doubt about that he will enter into further dialogue with the council so that the effects can be addressed as soon as possible.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has obviously listened to many representations in the past few weeks, but the question is whether he has actually heard what people have been saying and whether he is prepared to act. Today, we have found out that, presumably after prostrating himself on the floor before the Chancellor, he has come away with a further £10 million.
Mr Betts
Local authorities are going to get a further £10 million on top of the settlement they were previously promised. Even if that £10 million was given to one authority, such as Salford, instead of its reduction in total spend being cut from 8.9% to 8.8%, there would hardly be dancing in the streets. Authorities such as mine in Sheffield are getting nothing extra out of that small amount of additional money: they will still get a cut of more than 8%.
Mr Pickles
The figure is £10 million extra to district authorities. That is why the cut for authorities is no longer 8.9% but 8.8%. Extra money has gone in—not a lot, but we have been able to drop the cut a little.
Mr Betts
The Secretary of State’s words are very apposite—it is not a lot of money, but there are an awful lot of reductions up and down the country that local government is having to deal with.
My first point, which I made in a Westminster Hall debate but still have not received an adequate response to is that the overall cuts in Government expenditure over the four-year period are 19%, whereas the cuts for local government are 26%. Why is local government experiencing higher cuts than the overall average cuts to Government spending? We know that the services delivered by local government are important to our constituents. Some of those services go to those in most need—social services provision for aids and adaptations and for looked-after children. Some of them concern quality of life—for example, libraries, parks, playing fields and sports centres—and others are essential, such as refuse collection, street repairs and street lighting.
Most local authorities are doing all they can to protect their social services provision and to protect looked-after children and children with particular disadvantages, so it should come as no surprise that even when they have looked at back-room services and sharing services with other authorities, councils throughout the country of all political persuasions are cutting services such as libraries and bus services and changing their methods of refuse collection.
Henry Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the billions of pounds added to social care budgets in the comprehensive spending review?
Mr Betts
There were ear-marked allocations, including some transferred money from NHS funding, but even so local authorities are facing severe reductions. Westminster, a flagship Conservative authority, is cutting £1 million from its Supporting People budget. Hammersmith and Fulham was named for cutting eight community centres, I understand. Gloucester and Somerset councils are cutting libraries and closing them. Those are cuts in front-line services. Even authorities that are sharing services and cutting management costs still have to cut front-line services. Why has local government been singled out for bigger cuts than the rest of central Government combined?
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that local authorities across the country, such as my own in Great Yarmouth—we are a deprived area that has been hit with cuts—have said that they can deal with the changes without affecting front-line services? They are looking to do that through back-office savings and cross-working with other authorities.
Mr Betts
All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman’s authority must have had a much more favourable settlement than many others that are making those cuts. That is not happening on a party political basis. Conservative and Lib Dem authorities are making cuts as well. I am more than happy to receive a list from the Secretary of State of all the authorities that are managing the process without any cuts in front-line services. It will not include many Conservative and Lib Dem authorities, which are presumably making cuts not to spite the Government, but because of the position that they have been put in by the Government.
Mr Betts
I am sorry, but I must make progress. Other Members want to speak in the debate.
My next point is one made by the Local Government Association on a cross-party basis. Why are the cuts front-end loaded? Will someone explain? Even if the Government feel that they have to make the cuts over the four-year period, why are they front-end loaded?
Simon Kirby
Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that this country is paying £120 million per day to service the interest on the debt that his Government ran up?
Mr Betts
That is not the intervention that I was expecting. I thought that as those on the Front Bench could not help me, the Back Benchers would.
Why are the cuts front-end loaded? Why do nearly half the cuts come in the first year? I was in Croydon council on a Select Committee visit on Tuesday. Croydon council is a flagship Tory authority. It has participated in Total Place, it has community budgeting, it is part of the big society project and it is enthusiastic about it. The leader of the council sat across the table and said to me, “The thing that is really affecting us and may stop us delivering on projects like community budgeting and the big society is the front-end loading of the cuts, which is making it impossible for us to deal with them in a planned and organised way.”
That is a Conservative authority, and the Local Government Association is saying exactly the same. The front-end loading is forcing the cuts up front, which makes it harder to reorganise and to provide services in a different way. It means more money being spent on compulsory redundancies. It is a major problem, and nobody will explain why the cuts must be front-end loaded. Why?
Charlie Elphicke
Do not many local authorities have substantial reserves? The reason for having reserves is to provide a cushion. Manchester, I believe, is cutting 2,000 staff, yet it is sitting on £100 million of reserves. How can that be justified?
Mr Betts
—over which authorities do not have discretion. The figures include the housing revenue account and working capital that is needed to manage the cash flow of an authority, and they probably include identified sums in the authority’s capital accounts for major projects. All those things tend to get lumped together. The Secretary of State says that is not true. If he produced a list of figures for each local authority that extracts all those sums, that would be very interesting to see. I look forward to a copy of that being placed in the Library.
Paul Goggins
My hon. Friend might like to comment on the claim made by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), because Manchester city council will have to spend £60 million of its reserves simply making people redundant as a result of the cuts.
Mr Betts
The Secretary of State has had an exchange of letters with the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, who has complained bitterly that if more than £200 million is required nationally in capitalisation to pay for redundancy costs, that will result in a further cut in the grant to pay for it.
I will move on to the spread of the cuts. It is undoubtedly true that local authorities in the most deprived areas are getting the biggest cuts. Government Members will say that those authorities have the biggest grants, which by and large is true, but that is because they have the biggest needs and the most deprivation. The reality is that my local authority is getting more than an 8% reduction in its spending powers and Dorset county council is getting an increase. That is simply not fair.
Mr Betts
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and think that that is reasonably fair. The spread of the cuts is simply not fair. I accept that the Government have provided an element of transitional grant to help those authorities with most deprivation, but they simply have not gone far enough to protect those with the most needs and the most deprivation. That is why those areas now face the biggest cuts in services.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right that only months before announcing these job loses, Manchester city council spent £150,000 on a statue, which could have funded nine junior posts for a year?
Mr Betts
Manchester city council has to make its own local decisions, and I am not here to support or defend every action of every local authority. I thought that leaving such matters to local councils was what localism was all about. We must not put them in the position where they have to make cuts in front-line services, as Somerset, Gloucester and other authorities are having to do.
I support what the Government are doing on ring-fencing. I believe, as I have been saying for many years, that abolishing ring-fencing as far as possible is the right thing to do so that local authorities have more discretion in how they spend the money available to them.
On the question of business rates, I followed up with the LGA the issues I raised with the Minister for Housing and Local Government in my Westminster Hall debate. It has received legal advice on the matter from Bevan Brittan solicitors, which states that in this instance the Secretary of State has not set the distributable amount as a sum equal to the difference, but has chosen to budget for a surplus and set the distributable amount some £100 million lower at £19,000 million. That is simply unlawful, and that is the legal opinion the LGA has received—[Interruption.] I am raising the issue with the Secretary of State and giving the advice that the LGA has given me. If it is inaccurate, will he publish a precise assessment on whether he intends to budget for a surplus on the business rates and whether he believes to do so is lawful so that Members have the full and proper picture?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman occupies a senior position and so should know that all business rates have to be redistributed to councils by law. It is not possible to do what he is suggesting we are doing, because nothing can be done with a surplus other than giving it back to local authorities. He does not seem to appreciate that total public expenditure is within an envelope, but revenues from business rates go up and down, so councils are compensated by central Government.
Mr Betts
I understand that revenues from business rates go up and down, so when they go up more should be distributed to local authorities as a result. [Interruption.] Rather than engaging in further debate on this, I am happy to pass on to the Secretary of State the legal advice that the LGA has given me and ask him, if he believes that it is wrong, to issue a detailed correction. That seems an appropriate way to proceed.
Mr Betts
I will of course send the letter to the Secretary of State, and I look forward to his response.
On the question of putting salaries above £58,000 into the public domain, the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) ought to be pursued. If the Secretary of State is right, and he encourages local authorities to put more and more services out to the private sector, to the voluntary sector and to social enterprise, he will find that fewer people on those salaries are employed in the local authority sector. Somebody with responsibility for a service might be “TUPE’d” outwith that service to the private sector or to a social enterprise, in which case his transparency will therefore decline. So, when services are contracted out, could the requirement for transparency about salaries of more than £58,000 be transferred as well, and applied to contractors across the piece? That would be a way forward for the Secretary of State, and his Cabinet colleagues might like to look at it as a good example of transparency in practice.
The figures on Sheffield are misleading. The figures that have been quoted are for those redundancies that have been announced so far. Many vacancies in Sheffield are being held unfilled, and they are going to affect services. We know of several hundred posts that will not be filled by one means or other, and we also suspect that the Lib Dem administration there is trying to delay and avoid decisions, waiting to pass them on to the new Labour administration that will take office in May. The budget has not yet been finalised, however, so no one can quote a figure of 250. Several hundred jobs are likely to be lost as a result of the budget—many times the figure given today.
There are real problems with the settlement, but the fundamental question that comes across from local councils and the Local Government Association is, “Why are the cuts front-loaded?” Can the Government please provide an explanation? That fundamental problem is causing chaos in local authorities and massive cuts to services throughout the country.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
We meet today to review the local government settlement, and no doubt councils throughout the country are looking at their budgets, examining how much they are going to spend and making local decisions. We have at last started to hear from Opposition Front Benchers the recognition that reductions in public expenditure would have happened regardless of which party won the last general election. It has been a long time coming. We have been waiting for that view to creep forward, and slowly but surely the recognition is dawning that reductions would have had to be made regardless of who won the election.
We have inherited a legacy: local government council tax has doubled, but services have not really improved at all. Under the Labour Government, there was a transfer of responsibility to local government but a transfer of funding to the council tax, and that forced local people to pay for those services, which were not really delivered.
Authorities were also inspected and monitored to the absolute maximum, and part and parcel of the settlement before us is a reduction in that monitoring and inspection, all of which can be translated directly into savings that local authorities can make.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend agree that, extraordinarily, all that monitoring and inspection never seemed to include the over-inflated salaries of chief executives or the ridiculous pay-offs that occurred?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which refers to another thing that took place under the Labour Government. In all those organisations, pay is determined from the top, so as chief executive pay has rocketed, so has senior pay, while the large numbers of people who work for local authorities and do a brilliant job are paid relatively small amounts of money. There is no doubt, however, that the pay of middle management and senior management exploded, and I applaud the Secretary of State’s decision to publish the figures so that the public can see what type of jobs are involved.
We also saw an explosion in the creation of non-jobs, each of which required administrative support, departments and offices, all of which are costs to the taxpayer, specifically the council tax payer. We had a multitude of different grant regimes and ring-fencing so that if local authorities wanted to take decisions, they could not. I therefore welcome the merger of the different grant regimes and the removal of ring-fencing, which allows for local decision making at the right sort of level.
What Labour did was not all bad. The decision to tell local authorities what level of funding they were getting for three years was a good thing because it allowed them to plan ahead. I hope that in future times the settlement from the Front Bench will be offered not just for three years but for four or five years so that there is certainty for local government in planning ahead.
Henry Smith
Does my hon. Friend think that as well as certainty in terms of the amounts received by local authorities, it is also important that there is transparency as regards the formula for the way that those settlements are decided?
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend anticipates a matter that I was going to come to later. The outdated Barnett formula, which has transferred money to all parts of the country with no transparency whatsoever, must go and be replaced with a formula that delivers money on a fair and transparent basis that we can all see and understand. Even Lord Barnett himself cannot believe that his formula, which has existed for some 40 years, was not removed or transformed under 13 years of Labour Government, but they did not do it. That is one of the things that has to go.
We should deal with issues relating to the front-loading of reductions in expenditure. The reality is that the Government are having to deal with a deficit inherited from the Labour Government. We get maximum benefit from making public expenditure reductions early because we get four or five years-worth of reductions as a result. That is precisely the reason for doing it.
James Morris
As the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, Labour was committed to reducing the structural deficit in four years, which implied that 20% cuts in public expenditure would have been applied to local government. However, we did not hear a single thing from the Opposition about what they would have cut.
Bob Blackman
Indeed; my hon. Friend makes a fair point. We have heard the starting point of the apology and a little about what Labour would have done, but we do not know the detail. If the result of the election had been somewhat different, we would probably be arguing about money around the margins as regards the expenditure reductions.
I ask Front Benchers to consider the area cost adjustment. That is quite a serious issue for London and areas of deprivation, where higher costs are incurred. It appears that the area cost adjustment has not been dealt with reasonably in this settlement, and that needs to be looked at again. There are parts of the country where higher costs apply, and that is particularly true in London.
Capitalisation is just putting off paying today until tomorrow and doing it on a deferred basis. It means having to borrow or spend money on capital that could otherwise be employed. It is a wasted opportunity and the wrong way of dealing with redundancies. If councils wish to make redundancies, they should recognise that they will make savings on their revenue budget and they should use that budget to pay for the costs of those redundancies, not defer them through the capital programmes.
I applaud this Government for introducing the pupil premium. However, it will be equally applied across the country, and there are higher costs in London. Surely it must be right that in high-cost areas we increase the premium per pupil to recognise that fact. I ask Front Benchers to consider that.
We need to look at the data that are used to formulate the grant settlements. Certainly in London, those data are hopelessly out of date and inaccurate and therefore money is transferred in an unfair way. That has been true for many years, and I hope that we can put it right.
I will talk about two local authorities that I know well. The first is the London borough of Harrow, which has at last received a reasonable settlement from central Government. It is the third best in London and the 23rd best in the country. The Labour council that came in after the election inherited a transformation programme that reduces costs and safeguards services. We await its budget decisions. It should be satisfied with the settlement, after years of poor settlements from a Labour Government. In London, 27 of the 32 boroughs were on the floor under the Labour Government, receiving below inflation increases year after year. London has had to put up with draconian settlements before, and it knows how to deal with them.
The second is the London borough of Brent, where the Labour council inherited a transformation programme that would have saved £100 million over four years. Instead, it has decided to close six libraries and all the day care centres, to slash the voluntary sector programme, and to decimate services for the weak and vulnerable. That is a political decision. I suspect that that is precisely what is going on all over the country. Certain people are making decisions to close libraries, day care centres and other centres that affect the weak and vulnerable in advance of the Localism Bill, which will give local communities the opportunity to take them over and run them.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is talking about London, but does he agree that what he describes is mirrored outside London? The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke about areas that are deprived and hard-hit. Great Yarmouth, which is one of the most deprived areas in the country and is the hardest hit by these cuts, has said that it can deal with this situation without it affecting front-line services. It is doing so through shared services, thereby proving that this work can be done by councils that are prepared to be positive and think outside the box.
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reality is that the councils that planned ahead, knowing that reductions would take place, however draconian, are coping best. The councils that put their heads in the sand and said that it would never happen are being caught out. They are now being called to account. If councils have not planned ahead, they will suffer.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a London constituency. My local authority faces cuts of £87 million over the next four years, out of a budget of £271 million. It is finding that difficult, having decided to protect care for the elderly and child protection, which amount to £109 million of the budget. It is a disgrace for him to suggest that it is a political choice for councils to look at other front-line services. Does he not agree that the scope for finding savings is limited, should councils choose to protect essential services for the vulnerable?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It leads me on to my menu of what councils should do. Have they eliminated unnecessary monitoring? Have they eliminated duplication and multiple handling of applications for grants and other such services? Have they reviewed senior officer pay? Have they co-operated with other local authorities to reduce costs by combining back-office services? Have they cut their communications budgets, or have they chosen to send out publications to the community on a regular basis? Have they removed vacant posts that are unnecessary? Have they rationalised their office space and found office space that is no longer required? Have they taken their efficiency savings seriously and delivered them year after year, or have they continued on the same basis as before? Have they got into smarter procurement and come together with other local authorities to use their buying power to reduce their costs? Have they considered a long-term plan anticipating all the reductions? If authorities have done all those things and still have problems, then it is right that they approach the Secretary of State for help and advice on how to construct their budget at local level, but not until then.
This Government and our Front-Bench team have produced a set of figures and budget proposals that can be supported and that will be recognised in the years to come as a dramatic step forward in ensuring that people get proper value for money in the local services that are delivered to them. I ask that we consider how more money can be raised locally through the transitional business rates and in other such ways, and I ask that we consider how to deal with deprivation in future. It is a disgrace that has gone on for far too long that the deprived areas of the country have consumed more and more money, yet continued to be the deprived areas. That cannot be right, and we have to put it right.
I also urge Ministers to continue the process of helping councils to freeze council tax not just for one or two years but on a continuous basis, so that hard-pressed tax payers do not suffer any penalty as a result of the actions of the councils that operate their services. We can all applaud our Front-Bench team for the work that they are doing.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
When I spoke on local government funding in December, Government Members accused me of pre-empting the final settlement and of scaremongering. They superciliously lauded my passion but suggested that I await the Government’s definitive announcements before jumping to conclusions regarding how Liverpool would fare. Well, I have done that.
The formula has been decided, the figures have been published, the maths has been done, and I repeat vociferously now what I said back then. Not only will the scale, pace and nature of these draconian measures imposed in the name of fiscal restraint have a devastating impact on Liverpool, but in the wider scheme of things, the cuts will prove an utterly false economy.
I stated in December that Liverpool would be disproportionately hit, and I repeat that claim today. I should declare at this point that I am still a sitting Liverpool city councillor, at least until May. At Prime Minister’s questions earlier, a Tory Member had the temerity to say “Shame on Labour councillors” when the Prime Minister tried to blame Liverpool for his big society failures in the city. It did not take long for the malevolent Tories to revert to type and put the boot in to Liverpool, did it?
That comment shows the Conservatives’ lack of understanding, because it is not just Labour in Liverpool that is saying that the Tory cuts will savage our services. The whole council—Labour, Green and Liberal and even the Liberal Democrats, who used to run the council—is up in arms. The books are there for all to see, so I am happy to invite the Secretary of State to come and have a look at them to see the dilemma that he alone has created. We in Liverpool now know that we will have to save a budget-busting £92 million in the financial year ahead, and the council has very little, if any, room for manoeuvre. For all its valiant efforts to balance the books, both jobs and front-line services are to go. As we have heard, some 1,500 redundancies are predicted over the next two years.
Before hon. Members shout me down, I fully acknowledge that Liverpool is not alone. Local authorities up and down the country are facing crippling cuts, but I shall explain what is particularly galling about the situation in which Liverpool city council finds itself. In December, the Minister for Housing and Local Government was reported as pontificating:
“If councils share back office services, join forces to procure, cut out the crazy non-jobs and root out the wild over-spends then they can protect frontline services.”
The implication was clear: profligate and irresponsible local authorities needed to get their act together. The Minister was preaching to the converted in Liverpool. Having long been tightening its purse strings, it has achieved a total of £70.4 million of savings in the last three years, about £40 million of which was saved in the current financial year under a Labour-controlled council.
How Liverpool managed that might be of interest to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Liverpool did it by making proven efficiency savings in management, administration and back-office services, and through economies of scale achieved by sharing, outsourcing and collaboration. Simultaneously, the authority has managed to reduce and stabilise council tax. In fact, our approach was commended in this very House by the Secretary of State.
Liverpool has been there and done all that, and is both able and willing to continue in the same vein, but it cannot perform miracles. That is why the Prime Minister was wrong today, and why Liverpool city council was absolutely right last week to refuse any longer to prop up the Government’s sham, big society agenda, which was always a cover for a cynical exploitation of community and voluntary tradition to obtain public services on the cheap.
What is most objectionable is the way in which Ministers have banged on about protecting the most vulnerable communities, believing, it seems, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) says, that if they say something often enough, people will eventually believe it to be true. Well, not in Liverpool they won’t.
Our city is a city transformed. We are a great city do a business in, and once again I make the offer to the Tories to hold their party conference in Liverpool so that they can see what a great city it is first hand, just as the Lib Dems did last year and the Labour party will do this year.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has told the House of his scepticism in respect of the future of the big society. However, does he believe that the previous Government’s policy of big government has served either the people of Liverpool or this country very well, considering the devastating economic landscape and legacy that they left for the coalition Government?
Steve Rotheram
Dear me. It’s the same old mantra, isn’t it? We have had the debate on the deficit and the argument about whose responsibility it was. The hon. Gentleman will say one thing—I think Government Members get brownie points if they stand up and mention £120 million, and the Whips must be going, “That’s a good girl, that’s a good lad. They’ll go far in the Government”—but I am not going to rehearse the same argument today. That is why I confined my argument and contribution specifically to what is happening in my city. The Government cannot keep cutting without social consequences. My contention is that the formula that is being used is unfair to Liverpool, and the cumulative effect will be devastating.
I have explained the transformation of our city, and I hate to acknowledge this, but it is common knowledge: Liverpool is the most deprived local authority in England. I wish it was not. Seventy per cent. of its areas are classed as falling within the most deprived 10% nationally in terms of health and disability, and 57% of the population has been assessed as “employment deprived”.
What is more, the city relies disproportionately heavily on the now-threatened public sector. If that does not make Liverpool extremely vulnerable in these difficult times, I do not know what does, yet the Government persist in hiding behind averages. The Government told us earlier that the average spending power reduction is around 4.4% nationally. Okay. I will state now—without, by the way, the authority of my local council—that we will accept the national average cut. We will take that now. If we are all in this together, we will take our fair share of the pain, but Liverpool is faced with a maximum spending cut of almost 9%, even after receipt of the transition grant moneys.
It is absurd that while the most deprived community in the country faces the maximum level of spending reduction, the least deprived, Wokingham, faces a cut of just 0.63%. The Government can bandy around per capita figures until they are blue in the face, but the bottom line is that the areas facing the biggest spending squeezes—Liverpool, Manchester and Knowsley—are the poorest. So much for protecting the vulnerable. And so much for facts—not only did the Secretary of State have the audacity to claim on television recently that spending power in Liverpool would not be affected any more adversely than anywhere else, but he said that funding for supported people would be “entirely protected”. That simply is not the case. Liverpool city council has advised that its Supporting People funding has been slashed by 30%. But why let facts get in the way of an unsound policy and a soundbite?
Despite all this, Liverpool city council has sought to work with Ministers in a bid to comply with Government diktat. In a spirit of collaboration and compromise—allegedly so de rigueur with the Tory-led Government—the council has requested flexibility on two specific fronts. First, we are asking the Government to grant us capitalisation permission to help to meet the estimated redundancy costs of £45 million. The council does not hold out much hope, however. As we heard earlier, capitalisation permissions have been capped at £200 million for the whole of England, and a recent letter circulated to local authority leaders held out little promise of a relaxation in that limit. That leaves Liverpool city council in the invidious position of being unable to afford to keep employees on or to let them go. Believe me, it is with a heavy heart that we are making these proposed redundancies—it is not a political game.
Secondly, the council asked Ministers to rethink and recalibrate the front-loaded spending cuts, allowing it to spread them less abruptly and less painfully over the four-year spending review period. The Government are not prepared to budge on this, apparently. Instead, they will magnanimously reduce the maximum spending power cut from 8.9% to 8.8%. Thanks for the crumbs. This is a parlous state of affairs. Those who challenge the severity of local government cuts are the ones who are deficit deceivers. The so-called localism agenda is looking less and less like an experiment in local autonomy and more and more like a monumental exercise in fiscal buck passing—a wily move, but transparent.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that, for all the slick rhetoric, this is not a reconstructed Tory party, but the same old nasty Tories with a Lib Dem human shield. This Government do not give two hoots about poverty, disadvantage or inequality.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I shall try to keep my remarks brief.
The Secretary of State has set out our position in relation to debt and the public finances. We all know that we have a structural deficit of £109 billion, and we all know how much interest per day is being paid—£120 million. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made an impassioned plea on behalf of his city and said that we had had the discussion about the deficit and we should now move on. But that is the problem: we have had the discussion about the deficit and now we are seeing the consequence of years of overspending. We cannot get away from it. I wish we could. I did not stand for election and get sent to this House to be part of the difficult decisions that we have made. All of us as politicians love to hand out lollipops, kiss babies, cut the ribbon at the fête and do the nice things, but the sad reality is that we also have to take the difficult decisions when the nation is in the most difficult position it has been in for years.
Mr Speaker, you will recall that some years ago you sat on Lambeth council when it was under Labour control. At that time, you were a powerful advocate for the Conservative party. After your period in office, I was elected when it was a hung council. You were not able to influence events dramatically in Lambeth as you were in a minority under a majority Labour administration. In a hung situation, things were much more discursive—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that although I am sure his advertisement of my curriculum vitae is well intentioned, it is on the whole undesirable for right hon. or hon. Members to invoke the past positions or experience of the Chair in support of their own arguments? I feel sure that he is dextrous enough to advance his own argument without any assistance from me.
Charlie Elphicke
I meant no discourtesy, Mr Speaker.
Moving quickly to my own history, when I was elected in 1994 we had a hung council. We had a mess to sort out. All three parties worked positively together to do that and, frankly, to look at how to un-bankrupt a council that by then had £1 billion of debt. Difficult decisions were made. The emphasis was very much on ensuring better front-line services. My experience was that although we made difficult rebalancing decisions, we were able not only to protect front-line services but to improve them quite dramatically. People on the doorstep were saying that they were now getting front-line services, as opposed to excessive bureaucracy and—I regret to say in the case of Lambeth in those times—in some cases corruption, so positive changes can be made when difficult decisions are taken and things are reworked.
One thing that I particularly welcome is the council tax position. Council tax has been increased in the last decade or so—I believe that it has doubled—to the current level of £1,439. That is an awful lot of money and a massive increase. We know that, because of the deficit, it is not possible to increase local government spending on the grant settlement side of things. We also know that people have been flayed alive for over a decade, given the amount of council tax that they have been asked to pay. I therefore particularly welcome the Government’s decision to work positively with local authorities to freeze council tax. That is important to constituents such as mine who live in deprived circumstances. Many of them are elderly, and many are poor. Stopping council tax rises benefits them massively, particularly those on fixed incomes. Therefore, on the one hand, we have a set of tough decisions aimed at ensuring that we make those efficiencies, and on the other, we have managed to stop council tax rising, which is important.
I totally agree with the Secretary of State when he says that we need smarter procurement. We are doing that in Kent, with the Kent Buying Consortium. He has said that we need better asset management, too. Many people are more than aware of the position in Newham, where there is a new, flashy building that has cost an awful lot of money. We have to be much more cute about using asset management. We have the streamlining and merging of operations, and in Dover and Shepway we increasingly have shared services, so that there will be a shared chief executive and shared back office. That agenda has been embraced in Kent, which is important. It is also important to consider how best to deliver services. Suffolk county council has at times been a bit over the top with its chief officers, but it has led the way on how services can be run, with care homes operating as social enterprises. In my constituency, I am promoting the case for a care home in Deal to be transferred to a community interest company when the local authority feels unable to continue running it.
That is the right way forward. I do not think that this is a debate in which we should necessarily be partisan or throw rocks at each other, because we know the financial position. I could quote the figures showing that Labour was going to cut the budget by £5 billion—that was in Labour’s pre-Budget report—and all the rest of it, but would that help matters? No, because we know the position of the nation’s finances.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that my local council in North West Leicestershire is facing budget cuts of 10% somewhat undermines the complaints made by the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), about Liverpool’s budget being cut by 9%? Does that not prove that we are indeed all in this together? We all know who put us in it, and we should not let them forget it for one moment.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Just as when all parties in Lambeth worked together positively in the local authority’s interest, it would be best if we all worked together in the national interest to ensure that all councillors, from all parties, did not try to score political points, which we have seen far too much of lately, but instead worked positively, thinking not about advancement, aggrandisement or the headlines that they might be able to get, but about their constituents. At the end of the day, we were all sent here by our constituents—whether in Liverpool, which is seeking a bit of attention, or anywhere else, it does not matter. All local authority leaders have a responsibility to give their constituents the best possible services and assistance in these extraordinarily difficult conditions.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I shall keep my remarks brief, because I know that many Members want the debate to wind up. I shall have the opportunity tomorrow afternoon to meet the Minister for Housing and Local Government together with my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). I can tell the Minister that I am looking forward enormously to looking him in the eye as I make my points on behalf of my community, which I feel incredibly strongly about.
Today, I have a terrible feeling of déjà-vu. When I came into the House 13 years ago, it was at the end of almost 20 years of Conservative Government. Before that, I was a local councillor in my community for eight years. I had spent every one of those eight years as a councillor under a Tory Government cutting budgets year on year. When I came here, our public services were on their knees. Two of my inner-city wards had 50% male unemployment, and we had 70% youth unemployment. My local council had been absolutely decimated. That was the reality of being in local government under a Tory Government, and I am sorry to say that it feels as though history might be about to repeat itself. All the progress that we have made over the past 10 to 15 years is in the process of being unravelled; we are going to go backwards instead of forwards.
Recently, I had a meeting with my chief constable, Peter Fahy, to talk about the police cuts, which we discussed here earlier today. I have a huge amount of time for him; he is an extremely good officer. He told me that what worried him most was that we would go backwards and undo all the progress that had been made. He was particularly worried that the advances that we have made for young people would be undone, because young people are the foundations for the future.
I put it to the Secretary of State that the cuts that he is imposing are unfair. They are unfairly targeted at the poorest communities, and they will undermine the foundations that we have built for the future. The education results in my city are now immeasurably improved, crime has gone down dramatically, and housing and regeneration have gone forward apace. We have Media City at Salford Quays, and we have the opportunity to build a fantastic future. This year, however, we are facing £47 million of cuts in Salford. Next year, it will be £48 million, and the year after, it will be £55 million. Those are not political choices. I do not know how the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) can stand up in the Chamber and make the outrageous claim that councillors who are doing their best to protect their communities are making deliberate, unnecessary political choices to cut services. That is an insult not only to Labour councillors but to Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors. I have been a councillor, and I know how hard it is to make the kind of choices that are having to be made now.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of these grant choices are not simply about fairness? For example, some of the settlements for the fire and rescue authorities could be very dangerous. In Nottinghamshire, the number of fire tender appliances is apparently going to be reduced from 36 to 30. These funding decisions are creating really serious risks.
Hazel Blears
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we share the same concerns. The Greater Manchester fire and rescue authority has had to make even further cuts because the figures changed halfway through its budget process.
I want to make just a few observations about the position that Salford is in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, “We will not balance the books on the backs of the poor.” However, Salford is one of the poorest authorities. We are in a consultation process with our community, and I spoke to my leader this afternoon. We are looking at the possibility of having to close libraries and one of our sports centres, as well as taking £1 million out of our youth service and £500,000 out of adult social care. Unlike many local authorities, ours has said that it still wants to provide services to elderly people who have moderate, as well as critical, needs. That has always been a priority for Salford, but we are still going to have to take £500,000 out of that service. We will also have to make a 42% cut in the Connexions service. I want my youngsters to get the skills and to have the ambition to get those jobs in Media City, but how can they aspire to that kind of future if they do not have a proper careers guidance service?
We are having to cut the citizens advice bureaux by 15%—it is the minimum we can do, but we know that people will be out of work, as we are looking at losing 450 jobs in the city. People will have debts and will need advice, so what do we have to do? We have to cut the CAB and the 60-odd independent financial advisers that we funded through the financial inclusion fund, which is about to be slashed. The amount of advice left available will be absolutely minimal. Our voluntary organisations will have to be cut perhaps by 10% to 15%. Again, Salford council is really trying to make sure that it protects those voluntary organisations, but they cannot be immune from the cuts that the rest of the service has to take.
I mentioned area-based grants. I feel strongly about them because area-based grants were specifically directed at poor and deprived areas that had extra needs. The slashing of area-based grants has disproportionately affected those living in the poorest parts of our community. In Salford, it was 11% of our total budget, and much of that money was used to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour, to provide youth services and diversion schemes and to keep young people off the streets and make the community safer. All that is about to disappear.
I genuinely feel that these cuts are unfair, despite the Secretary of State’s smoke and mirrors about spending power, his new definitions and all his obfuscation of the real situation. The cuts in spending power in his area are of less than 1% next year, yet we are looking at 15% cuts in Salford. For the area of the Leader of the House, the cuts are less than 1%; for the Home Secretary’s area, less than 1%; for the Culture Secretary’s, the Transport Secretary’s and the Education Secretary’s areas, less than 1%. These are some of the most affluent parts of the country. I believe that if cuts have to be made, which they do, they must be fair—but they are simply not fair.
I say to the Secretary of State that I have a huge amount of respect for the people of this country: they are not stupid; they understand that hard decisions have to be made, but they also have a well-developed sense of justice and fairness. They will see right through what the Secretary of State is doing. Transparency will come for the Tory party’s actions; people will see right through them.
I commend the campaign launched in the Manchester Evening News. It is a massive campaign against the cuts, urging local people to sign a petition. The Manchester Evening News is not a partisan paper; it represents people right across the conurbation. They, too, can see the unfairness. Nine of our 10 boroughs in Greater Manchester have cuts higher than the national average. The only borough that does not is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell); that has a below-average amount of cuts. People across Greater Manchester—people in Rochdale, in Oldham and in places right across the area—know that these cuts are deeply unfair. I have no doubt that action will be taken at the ballot box in May.
My final point is about what else could be done. We heard a lot from the Secretary of State about community budgets. As he well knows, I started off my time in the Department with Total Place, which meant bringing together and pooling budgets, co-location, integrated services, systems engineering, and service redesign—all those things that Government Members have talked about. However, for major service redesign, time for planning is necessary—it cannot be done at the drop of a hat, because different skills and competences are involved and people might have to be made redundant. We have heard about the lack of capitalisation for that sort of project; it cannot be done all at once. I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee. Why are these cuts front loaded, which makes it so much more difficult to do the systems redesign that could result in efficiencies without the need for front-line cuts?
The Secretary of State will tell me otherwise, but I genuinely believe that the reason for having the cuts early on is that more freedom to manoeuvre—and to be more generous—will be possible in the two years leading up to the next general election. The Government will hope to reap the rewards from that. I hope that it is not the Secretary of State’s intention to make a partisan political budget in this way. I would like some reassurance that he is trying to be fair rather than to seek political advantage. When we reach the two years before the election and we will have had these massively front-loaded cuts in the first two years, I will be amazed if we do not see the Secretary of State seeking some room for manoeuvre for electoral advantage.
Mr Pickles
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady who, as always, is giving a thoughtful speech. I can assure her absolutely that that it not the intention, and I can assure her absolutely that that is why we have put in extra protection for the most vulnerable.
Hazel Blears
I think that if the Secretary of State came to Salford—as the Minister for Housing and Local Government did recently—and said that he had given extra protection to the most vulnerable members of our community, he would receive the sort of typically robust Salford reply that I could not possibly use in the House.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have heard a great deal about the big society. Apparently Lord Wei is unable to do quite as much as he used to because he no longer has time to volunteer, which I thought was a wonderful irony. As the Secretary of State will know, I strongly support the underlying principles of involving the community, devolving power and introducing more plurality to the provision of public services. However, as has been pointed out by Dame Elisabeth Hoodless of the Community Service Volunteers, Thomas Hughes-Hallett, chief executive of Marie Curie Cancer Care, Sir Stuart Etherington of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and Sir Stephen Bubb of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations—none of whom are partisan people—while the Government talk of the need to empower voluntary organisations and local communities, they are making massive, deep, draconian cuts in the voluntary sector. That simply does not add up. It is totally contradictory, and it is increasing the sense of cynicism and disempowerment that exists in our communities.
If the Government have any genuine commitment to giving people the power to change their own lives, they must recognise the total incoherence and inconsistency that lies at the heart of their so-called big society. This is not community action; it is do-it-yourself. The Government are telling people, “You are on your own, with no back-up and no ability to take on roles of this kind.” I know that some Members genuinely support these principles, but I fear that, given the cuts that we are seeing, they are going absolutely nowhere except into the sand.
My final plea to the Government relates to community budgeting. For goodness sake, let us get on with it more quickly. We will be able to ameliorate some of the pain that our communities will feel only if we can re-engineer our services, pool the budgets, achieve the necessary co-location, and start to address many of our current problems. At present that programme is minimalist. I think we have been told that four areas in the country might adopt community budgeting. We know what happened with the four big society areas. I ask the Secretary of State to enable us to support many more areas, so that they can provide services in a new and, I believe, more integrated way that could lead to a transformation in the provision of local government services.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I do not wish to rehearse arguments that have been presented by Members on both sides of the House. Instead, I shall focus on the case of Somerset county council.
Before any funding announcements had been made, Somerset county council’s leader announced to local people that he wished to make cuts amounting to £43 million. Then, in early January, he announced that he wished to make a further tranche of cuts amounting to £20 million. He said that he would close some libraries, cut bus subsidies, cut the community safety budget by 100%—which would mean the loss of our wonderful police community support officers—cut funds for the Duke of Edinburgh award and the youth clubs by nearly 100%, and cut arts funding and the voluntary sector by 100%. He also said that he would sell the county farms, which seemed ludicrous to me given that they provide a return of some 6% or 7%—more than could be obtained from any bank.
The leader of Somerset county council seems obsessed with the idea of clearing debt. He does not seem to understand that for most businesses it is quite all right to have a mortgage or a loan. They know what the repayments will be, and they schedule them. There is nothing extraordinary about that. I do not think that I know a farmer or small business man who has saved up all his money before buying stock. Such people go to the bank and take out a loan. They know how long it will take them to repay the loan, and it is scheduled. They increase their assets, and tuck the money back into the business. That is what has happened over many years in Somerset under the Liberal Democrats.
The leader of Somerset county council has said that he wishes to make his cuts over three years rather than four, which strikes many people as a frantic attempt to clear debt. It is a bit like people paying off their mortgage or their car or fridge loan and realising that actually they do not have any money and they cannot buy food because they are so obsessed with clearing their debt.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Lady is making an important point about how politicians who are obsessed with debt reduction at the cost of everything else may well find themselves in jeopardy. Does that not remind her of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s attitude, whom I think she is supporting?
Tessa Munt
I disagree, because the situation here is that the county council has £29 million in reserves, excluding the money attached to schools, yet we have a man who wishes to put aside £15 million for redundancies, which is going to decimate the council staff, and to make cuts over three years instead of four. If he was to reschedule his debt over four years, it would be a lot less difficult for people in Somerset. Happily, as a result of campaigning by local people, three libraries have been saved: Shepton Mallet, Glastonbury and Cheddar. However, the library in Highbridge, an area that probably needs a library more than any other because there are so few facilities in that town, is still under threat.
I approached one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers because I wanted to understand. There is so much confusion among local people about what is actually involved, because there is one grant and another grant, and little bits of money get thrown back and forth in conversation, and nobody really understands what is happening. I asked the Minister in question to explain to me in simple terms the situation facing Somerset. In simple terms, this year—the year ending on 31 March—Somerset has £368 million to spend, and next year, starting on 1 April, it has £360 million. That is a difference of only £8 million in spending money, which amounts to 2%. Somerset has had a fantastic deal therefore, so I do not understand the obsession that this gentleman has. Moreover, the Government have been generous in granting £42 million in capital grants. That means we can fix the roads, which are in a shocking state, and do something about school buildings. As far as I can see, the county is £20 million better off than it ever has been, and, as I understand it, the capital grant is cash, and that £42 million is about £41 million more than anyone ever expected to have.
As far as I can see therefore, Somerset has an increase in funding from central Government, and that funding is relatively generous in the current economic circumstances. I therefore do not understand why the county council leader is going to announce a series of cuts next Wednesday. If those cuts proceed and he makes those announcements on Wednesday, I will ask the Secretary of State to give me an appointment so I can come along with the leader of Somerset county council to ask that gentleman to explain himself and his actions.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Hammersmith and Fulham council is closing nine of its 15 children centres this year, and by doing so it will generate about £2 million in savings. That is part of the £6 million savings in children’s services, which in turn are part of the £13 million savings in social services, which in turn are part of the £27 million that the council aims to save in the coming financial year. The total over the three years is £65 million, or about a third of its budget.
Because of the policies the Secretary of State is pursuing, many councils are having to make unimaginable cuts of this kind. I want to focus on two points in respect of Hammersmith and Fulham council. First, in making those very difficult decisions it has chosen to target the most vulnerable people, and the services that all parties represented in this House say that they wish to be preserved. Secondly, it maintains a charade, with which the Secretary of State has colluded and continues collude, that it is doing this in a new way—that these are new cuts that will not affect front-line services.
In particular—this picks up the point just made by the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt)—the council says that it will pay off debt, and in that way generate revenue income. It says that it will merge back-office services and in that way avoid affecting front-line services. I will break the spell immediately by saying that even if those two ideas—the merger and the disposals to pay off debt—are both successful, which is by no means certain, the total amount of money generated would be about £1 million, or 4% of the total cuts. That is what we are being led to believe is the new way of making cuts.
Before I came to this debate, I had two meetings this afternoon about Sure Start. The first was of an all-party group, to which the Minister with responsibility for children came to speak. He is an honourable man, as well as being an hon. Gentleman, and I believed what he said, which is what I have heard all the Education Ministers repeat. They believe that there is sufficient money to maintain the network of children’s centres and that there is no need to attack their budgets, particularly the phase 1 centres that serve the most vulnerable groups.
That appears to be Government policy, but this is what is happening in Hammersmith and Fulham. First, the closure of the nine centres was announced between Christmas and new year—on page 34 of a report called “Family Support”. Secondly, when that report came up for decision—by that time, thanks to the Daily Mirror and other great organs of state, a lot of the local population had been alerted to the situation—the council said, “You’ve misunderstood what we’re doing. We’re not closing any children’s centres,” but it then proceeded to vote through, on 10 January, the 50% budget cut that meant that those centres had to close. Having made that decision, it then began a consultation process—but that process identifies phase 1 children’s centres, the budget for which is to go down from £473,000 to £19,000. Threats were made to the staff, who were not informed before the closure of their centres was announced in the press. Heads of centres were told that they could not talk to me, or even to the Government, about what was happening.
To her credit, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), did say during a Westminster Hall debate that she was concerned about, and was monitoring, what was happening in Hammersmith and Fulham. If the Government want to hold their line on Sure Start, they need to address the situation in Hammersmith and Fulham. It is not just Sure Start centres; youth clubs are closing too. I received a deputation representing 1,000 young people who use a youth club just outside my constituency that is closing, and I am told that all but one of the youth centres will close. Council estates are being demolished.
I went to a meeting at an old people’s home last Friday where, in order to raise £250,000, the air rights over the car park are being sold to a private school next door, so that no light will reach the old people’s home. Some of those old people spend 100% of their time in that home. This is what is happening in a Conservative-controlled council in London at the moment. This is the reality of the “painless” cuts.
Those are the things that we do not hear about in Hammersmith and Fulham. What about the things we do hear about? What about the paying off of debt—that prudent way of reducing debt? That happened on Monday, when, at a meeting of the council’s cabinet—I believe that the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), referred to this earlier—the disposal of nine community buildings was agreed to. Those buildings include four community centres used by more than 100 voluntary groups, all of which will be made homeless, and alternative provision will not be made for them. Those buildings include Palingswick house, an imposing building in central Hammersmith in which 22 voluntary groups occupy space. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State alluded to one of those earlier: the Afghan refugee group.
Because councils have to produce equality impact assessments when they are booting voluntary organisations out on to the street, Hammersmith and Fulham did that. It produced one for the Iranian Association, which caters mainly for refugees from the oppressive regime in Tehran: the Iranian Association was told that the alternative provision was to go to the Iranian embassy. The Kurdish Association for Refugees is also based in the building, and runs not only a cultural advice centre but a museum—one promoted by Boris Johnson on his tourist trail of London. It was told that the alternative to being booted out on to the street was to go to an organisation for the south Asian population based somewhere in east London. The Afghan refugee association was told that there were two alternative sources of provision for Afghan refugees in London, one was an Afghan restaurant and the other—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has already said—was the southern Afghan club, for the promotion of Afghan hounds. That is how my local community in Hammersmith is being treated by a Conservative council.
Three other community centres all came up with viable business plans that would have allowed them to continue operating from their community centres and pay a commercial rent, which would have meant that over a period of two or three years, the council would not have lost money. Without listening any further to those ideas the council voted through the proposal, and all these buildings will be sold off to produce an income of about £500,000 a year. The opportunity cost for the tens of thousands of people who will no longer have those facilities available to them, including the elderly people and the 750 kids from deprived backgrounds who go to dancing classes at one of these places, is unimaginable. But this is what the council is proud of.
The other thing that the council is proud of is the merger with Westminster city council and Kensington and Chelsea borough council, which was announced yesterday. I alluded in an earlier intervention to the Secretary of State’s claim last October—he associated himself with this claim—that the move would save £100 million. When the report was published yesterday, it said that in the dim and distant future—no detail was provided—this would save about £34 million between the three councils. That is already only a third of the sum that was claimed some two to three months ago. The actual quantified savings for next year, between the three councils, was less than £3 million, and the actual sum for Hammersmith and Fulham council was £500,000. That is the big new idea. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) making a sedentary comment. She represents my previous seat, and I always give her credence. She is absolutely right that £500,000 of genuine saving of back-office cost is well worth having, but it is not £27 million, £10 million or £100 million.
That sum is worth having, save for the fact that what those merger proposals envisage is not what hon. Members would like to hear—which is that the savings would come from economies of scale, procurement, and other such administrative matters. We would all support that, but instead the proposals are about creating a new entity that is not Hammersmith and Fulham, not Kensington and Chelsea, and not Westminster. It will be entirely unaccountable to the citizens of any of those boroughs, and it absolutely flies in the face of devolution and localism. No proper risk assessment has been done of the proposal, and £20 million of the notional £35 million will come from cuts in social services. I hate to think about the number of baby Ps that there will be, and the number of elderly people who will be put at risk as a result of these crazy, ill-thought-out and half-baked proposals.
There is no accountability in the arrangement. Two of the authorities have traditionally been Conservative and one has traditionally been Labour. The clear intention is to bind the hands of that authority, so that when it returns to Labour control, as it will doubtless do in three years’ time, it will no longer have jurisdiction over its own spending, because that will be centred in a holding company over which none of the individual councillors has control. Is that really the future of localism in this country? That is the brave new world that the Secretary of State’s favourite council has in store for us.
Mr Slaughter
The Secretary of State may shake his head, but he is very welcome to intervene. He has called the council the apple of his eye, but it is a rotten apple of his misty eye. He needs to have a closer look and clear his vision a little.
The next time people hear about Hammersmith and Fulham council they should think not about the white heat of efficient local government, but about those Sure Start buildings that now stand empty, and the community buildings being sold to property developers or used for pet Government schemes such as Toby Young’s free school. They should think, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has said, about the old mate of the chief executive being paid a total of £700,000 over three years to manage an arm’s length management organisation at the council. They should think of the six chief officers who are paid more than £150,000 a year and the £250,000 they wasted because they could not be bothered to turn off the lights at the town hall for five years.
That is the reality of Tory local government. They do not care when they waste money, and they take pride in cutting services such as the nine Sure Start centres. The second meeting I went to this afternoon was with the heads of those Sure Start organisations, who met here to campaign to keep open one of the Labour Government’s great achievements. The Conservatives say they are committed to Sure Start, but the reality of Tory local government on the ground means that those services will be shut down before we can draw breath.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
I have spent almost my whole political life not wanting to personalise politics, but I must say to the Secretary of State that he should be ashamed of himself for losing the battle in the Cabinet and the spending review so that local government has become the victim of his incompetence. He should be ashamed of himself because the settlement is divisive within the local government family. It will inflict damage on vulnerable authorities while, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), some local authorities are feather-bedded and treated with kid gloves. This political decision of his is an outrage because in cities such as mine it will be the most vulnerable people who suffer, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) have pointed out. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State chunters from a sedentary position. The reality is that, like previous Tory Secretaries of State for local government, he has no compassion or consideration for those who will lose their home help or for the children who will lose the life chances that people in his constituency will take for granted. What we have had from him and his Ministers is a campaign of ridiculous disinformation such as the nonsense that has been repeated by Tory Members today about £150,000 going on statues in Manchester or about the Twitter tsar who was an invention of the Minister for Housing and Local Government. [Interruption.] The Minister says something from a sedentary position that I cannot hear, but I am happy to give way to him if he wants to make his point. [Interruption.] He indicates that he will reply when he winds up. No doubt that will allow him to peddle his ridiculous fantasies again.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that an advert for a new media expert for £38,000 was not placed by the council?
Tony Lloyd
I have checked and there is a communications officer, whom, the House might be interested to know, was asked to have competence in new technologies such as Twitter and is equivalent to a number of people in the Minister’s Department who have the same role, the same salary band and the same competences. His Twitter tsars massively outgun Manchester’s ability to communicate. He should think very carefully, because trading insults at this level does nothing for the people who are going to lose adult social services. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State want to intervene?
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tony Lloyd
I will give way to the Secretary of State. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Mr Pickles
Some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman is talking about relate to the working neighbourhoods fund, which was cut by the Labour party. Where was he then? Why was he not lecturing the Labour party about those cuts? He criticises us but he was silent on his constituents’ behalf then.
Tony Lloyd
I invite the Secretary of State to come to my constituency any day of his choosing. We will walk around and talk to local people, and we will ask them about the record of local government under a Labour Government and under previous Conservative Governments. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles said, when the Labour Government came into power in 1997, Manchester had seen services consistently destroyed. They were fragile and vulnerable. Under a Labour Government there was an improvement in standards in education, health—a much more difficult task—housing and crime and disorder. All those improvements strengthened our communities and put the cement back into our society.
That Secretary of State, who chunters away to his friends, is putting all that at risk and he is doing so deliberately. There was choice. There was choice in the Budget process that he lost with his friends in Cabinet. There was choice when he decided to put money into local authorities such as Somerset, and not to put money into local authorities such as Manchester. That is a particularly cruel cycle of choice and a cruel deception.
The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box earlier today and told the House that he was guaranteeing that Sure Start centres would continue to operate. Let us talk about the reality in a city such as Manchester, which is having to cut children’s services by some 25%. It has had to say that it will give up control of those Sure Start centres, and it hopes that the running of them will be taken over by the voluntary sector or possibly schools. There is no guarantee for the young people in Manchester that the Sure Start centres, which are praised by everyone on the Government Benches, will continue to operate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith says the political choice of the Tory council is to cut the Sure Start centres. In Manchester, a Labour council has to put those Sure Start centres at risk because of the actions of the Secretary of State and his friends.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman talks of political choices. Yes, we can talk about statues, Twitter tsars, creative directors and the junket in the south of France, but the key political choice in Manchester is to axe 2,000 jobs while there is £100 million in reserves. How can the hon. Gentleman justify that?
Tony Lloyd
I think the hon. Gentleman is either a little hard of hearing or not too fast at understanding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made the point earlier. Those balances that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have traded and which they said are there as some luxury cushion are, in the case of Manchester, allocated money.
Grant Shapps
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is £108 million of non-schools money held by his local authority? Earmarked does not mean the same as allocated.
Tony Lloyd
The £64 million that will now be allocated will be for the redundancies that the Government are forcing the council to make. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). It is a disgrace that Manchester must spend such a huge amount of money making good local government workers redundant. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. As a result, the things that the Housing Minister described as being merely earmarked will now not go ahead, so Manchester will lose provision and facilities because of the Government’s decision.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman speaks of the £64 million earmarked for redundancies. What we did in Lambeth, what happens in most authorities, and what the Government are doing, is to examine the possibility of natural wastage and introduce a slower programme of voluntary redundancies, which would not mean as great a shock as the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Tony Lloyd
Let me try to bring the hon. Gentleman forward a little in his thinking. Manchester would love to have done that. Manchester has not made compulsory redundancies—possibly it is true to say—in my lifetime. Manchester is now having to do that because the pace of the cuts that his Secretary of State is making is so rapid that it has no choice. For an authority such as Manchester, 25% of the budget cannot be taken out of the pot without that resulting in compulsory redundancies.
Paul Goggins
Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments, remarks and challenges coming from Government Members reveal a complete lack of understanding of the nature of a city like Manchester? Manchester is a world leading city. It is founded on two things—first, a strong partnership with the private sector and secondly, over recent years, having the money to invest in the communities that need it. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that their ignorance and arrogance mean that the progress that we made is put at risk?
Tony Lloyd
The only thing I disagree with is that my right hon. Friend’s words are too mild, because what the Secretary of State is doing is the result of political malice. It is political malice because the simple reality is that he chose not to exercise the options that were available to him. He chose to make a local government settlement that puts at risk not only money—if it was only money perhaps we would move on—but the resources on which people depend for living their lives. It puts at risk those things that saw crime and disorder diminish in Manchester and that began to give young children in inner-city areas like mine opportunities in life that he would take for granted—the Secretary of State smiles. He is smiling while I talk about children being denied the opportunity to get on in life, because that does not matter to a Conservative Government, or to their Liberal Democrat friends and supporters. It does matter enormously, because they are brutalising our society.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned extra resources for the concessionary fares for shire district councils, yet two weeks ago the Conservative and Liberal Democrat-led Greater Manchester transport authority scrapped the young people’s concession and the peak-time pensioners’ concessionary fare. That is the reality on the ground, and is it not another example of the unfairness?
Tony Lloyd
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because all of this is about political choice, and we have to face that squarely. The Secretary of State knows that it is about political choice, because he has form in local government. I remember when he was a national figure in local government; he is now a national figure in national government, but sadly the rhetoric and the reality have not changed. I believe that local government is fundamentally important to the lives that my constituents live. I believe that things such as swimming pools and leisure centres really do matter as part of the process of making our society more decent and more liveable and of properly giving our young people some stake in that society and some opportunity for the future. Frankly, he does not share the view that local government is the answer to our nation’s problems; he regards it as part of those problems.
I must admit that I genuinely like the Housing Minister—I am sorry if I damage his future by saying so—because he is a nice man. He said that he was going to Manchester next week, so I hope that he will come and talk seriously with the people in my town hall, and perhaps in the other local authorities around Greater Manchester, because he needs to recognise that the Government have simply got it wrong. If he wants to stand at the Dispatch Box, as he will in a moment, and tell me that the cuts are not the result of brutal, cynical, malicious and political choices, he can offer to come to my city and talk through the finances. If I am right and he is wrong, and Manchester cannot possibly manage without making serious cuts in public services, perhaps he will have the good grace to admit that the Government must change their minds. I hope that that will happen, but I fear that it will not.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
It must have been an incredible experience to stand at this Dispatch Box for the local government finance settlement in any of the past few years and announce on a whim yet more money being piled up and sent around the country in various directions. Unfortunately, we do not live in that kind of world today, and the sad thing is that we did not live in that kind of world even then. The previous Government thought that they had money to spend, but the truth was that it had long since been spent. A year ago, all they were doing was standing here and spending money that had never been raised, that was not available and that would actually have to come from the children of every Member of the House and of all our constituents for many years to come.
At the election, people had a choice, and their decision was to elect a Government who were primarily going to get on with cutting the deficit. Today, however, there has been not a word of apology from the Opposition for getting us into that enormous financial mess that meant that this country had the highest deficit of any country in the western world—of any OECD top 20 country. Do they recognise that as a fact? Do they understand where things went wrong? Are they here today to apologise and to show that they are going to set a new path? Absolutely not, because as we saw at lunchtime the policy vacuum on the Opposition Benches is quite literally a booklet with empty blank pages inside.
There has been no response and no sense of where those cuts would fall. The Opposition do say that there would be some cuts; it is just that we are not allowed to know where they would fall. The Opposition accept that local government spends a quarter of all government money, but it seems that none of those cuts would be in any way painful under their budget, which, they say, would halve the deficit over this Parliament.
Halving the deficit, however, is not enough. I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this country’s accounts work. Indeed, perhaps that was the problem over 13 years: the previous Government did not understand that, if we only halve the deficit, we will still pile up debt. The figure of £44 billion, which we are currently spending at record interest rates just on repaying the interest alone, would have gone up to £70 billion and more, yet the Opposition have not a single answer—not a single penny—to offer up to this debate. Therefore, their contribution has been all but pointless.
Mr Betts
The right hon. Gentleman refers to past debates. Can he point to any occasion over the years when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson said that the Government were providing too much money to local councils? Can he provide one example of a Conservative MP saying, “My council’s getting too much money in this settlement”?
Grant Shapps
The Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee is absolutely right: my colleagues and I have been reflecting over the past few weeks, when the representatives of many local authorities throughout the country have been to see us, on what it must have been like to have been in a previous Administration, when one could believe that money was no object—that one could simply get this thing from the money tree and spend it as one wished by giving higher and higher settlements to every authority that came to visit. How wonderful it must have been, but I am afraid that the truth, the reality, has come home to roost, and once again we are left to sort out the mess that Labour has left us with.
Having accepted that there should be some reductions, it was not as if the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who shadows the Department, was able to agree with any of the methods that might be used to make reductions without harming front-line services. In fact, she went so far as to ridicule my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) because he mentioned in an intervention that Hampshire council has just announced that it will cut £7 million next year by cutting the senior management salaries and work force. That was pooh-poohed as impossible. Well, for the sake of clarity, I have managed to get hold of a copy of that detailed information, and my hon. Friend was wrong: it is not £7 million that will be saved by cutting senior management; in fact, it is £7.9 million.
The idea that money cannot be saved or that leadership cannot be shown by example when senior people take a cut, as Ministers in this Government have with a five-year pay freeze, or that that does not have an impact further down the line on the rest of senior and middle management, has been blown apart. The authorities that have taken such steps have found it much easier to sell to the rest of the authority the difficult decisions that have had to be made.
Nor is the right hon. Lady correct when she talks about the £10 billion of reserves. There are £10 billion of reserves for local authorities, as has already been pointed out in an intervention, but the right hon. Lady says that 70% of it has been earmarked, and, in that, she makes a fundamental mistake, which I am surprised about, because she was in this Department when in government. The reality is that “earmarked” is not the same as “spent” or “allocated”. “Earmarked” does not mean that the money cannot be used in the intervening period to ensure that front-loaded reductions, which we have heard a lot about, can be handled in a much better way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) raised a serious technical issue that he had already come to ask us to look at again. We did do that, but we could not find in favour of his local authority. However, I say to him and to all other hon. Members that we thought that the concessionary fares mess that had been left by the previous Government required some assistance to sort out between the two tiers of government. I hope that that is helpful.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), referred particularly to front-loading. As I said to the right hon. Member for Don Valley, it is possible to use earmarked funds that are in the reserves. I invite the hon. Gentleman’s Committee to look at this again, as there seems to be some misunderstanding. I welcome the fact that he welcomes the end of ring-fencing, which had been called for very widely across government and the Local Government Association. Ring-fencing has been un-ring-fenced by some £7 billion, and that has given local authorities a lot more flexibility. We have taken 90 separate budgets and combined them into just 10, meaning that local authorities that are savvy and understand that the situation has changed are able to move much more quickly.
The issue of business rates was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East and others. There is a suggestion out there, which is gaining some credibility, that if business rates were collected at a higher level than the entire local government finance settlement, then the difference could be redistributed somewhere down the line. People need to understand that if business rate collection goes up or down, the amount that goes to local authorities is identical; it makes no difference. The amount that goes to local authorities is set out in the spending review envelope; it is insured by the Treasury, as it were. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Caroline Flint
There is huge concern up and down the country that there will be a future Tory policy to localise business rates, which would not deal with the inequalities in terms of opportunities to raise funds through businesses. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that that will not be a policy of this Government?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased to be able to provide the right hon. Lady with the reassurance that she needs. A redistributive approach will have to remain in whatever system is put in place. I will return to that in a few moments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made several good, intelligent points. He called for a settlement that is more predictable because it is provided for more years in a row. As the House knows, we have made a settlement for this year and for next year, after which time we intend entirely to reform the system to do what everyone has called for, which is to dump the failed redistributive formula grant system in which, as the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, everybody, even in the good years, complains that it has been poor for them.
My hon. Friend provided a very useful list of different things that local authorities could do before they start savagely cutting the front line, as in the case of some authorities in the past couple of days. Members will do well to refer back to that list in Hansard to see all those different methods. Until an authority has run through each one of the ideas that he presented, it has no right to be cutting the services of the most vulnerable in society.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made a very impassioned speech. I have seen some of the things that his local authority has done; the £4.5 million that it saved by cutting some of the senior management is of course the right way forward. However, he says that his council is still incredibly badly off. Let me make this simple point to him: while Liverpool is experiencing a reduction in its funding formula of 11.3%, my Hertfordshire council is experiencing a reduction of 16.1%. This Government have gone out of their way to try to protect the most vulnerable, and it is about time it was recognised that the spending formula was designed to do that.
The hon. Gentleman made another claim that was extraordinary and, as much as he may not realise it, untrue—inadvertently, I am sure. He said that his local authority is cutting Supporting People by 30%. If that is true, his local authority is getting it wrong. Supporting People is one of the budgets that we have protected way more than the general picture. There is a reduction of less than 1% in cash terms on average in the Supporting People budget over the next four years. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can put pressure on his local authority not to slash it, given that the Supporting People budget is largely protected at national level.
Steve Rotheram
If I can prove that it is 30%, will the Minister give us back the other 29% so that we suffer only a 1% cut, which is the national average?
Grant Shapps
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the grant formula—[Interruption.] Members would do well to listen to this point because it affects many constituencies. The simple fact is that Supporting People is paid for through the formula grant. Given that we know for a fact that there is not a reduction in spending power of more than 8.8% in his constituency, it cannot be the case that the Supporting People budget has fallen by the claimed 30%, so I take him up on his challenge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) made the worthwhile point that local authorities have been protected from having to raise council tax by the £650 million from central Government.
The hour is late and I do not want to detain the House. There is a clear division between authorities that have taken the necessary steps and those such as Manchester city council, which yesterday claimed that it has to make a 25% reduction.
Caroline Flint
I am aware of the time and I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman giving way. The person who stated that 25% of the net budget of Manchester city council will go over the next two years was its treasurer—a statutory officer of Manchester city council. I suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman is up there, he speaks to that gentleman, because I believe that that gentleman is right and that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Grant Shapps
Here is a simple fact for the right hon. Lady: the reduction in spending power over the next two years is 15.5%. Yesterday, Manchester city council called a press conference to say what it will not do over the next two years. It says that it is going to cut the budget by 25% over that period, when the reduction is only 15.5%.
To conclude, it is that side of the House and those authorities that are failing to protect the most vulnerable in society. Thank goodness for the coalition Government.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I wish to present a petition opposing the proposed withdrawal of the mobility component of disability living allowance from those living in state-funded care homes. The petition is signed by 135 members of Chippenham Gateway club in my constituency, a volunteer-run social club for those with long-term learning difficulties or mental health problems.
The petition states:
The Petition of members, volunteers and supporters of the Chippenham Gateway Club,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the Government’s proposal to stop paying the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance for disabled adults in residential care; and notes their concern that this proposal would have a devastating impact on the Chippenham Gateway Club and similar clubs for members with learning difficulties/mental health issues throughout the UK.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to stop paying the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance for disabled adults in residential care.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000884]
Domestic Heating Oil
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9606/10, relating to a Council Regulation establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism, No. 12119/10, relating to a draft amending budget No. 7 to the General Budget 2010—Statement of expenditure by Section—Section III—Commission, and No. 17361/10, Commission Communication on the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism; supports the Government’s view that whilst it is in the interests of all Member States to support a stable and fully functioning euro area, financial assistance for euro area Member States should primarily be provided by other euro area Member States; and supports the Government’s position that the United Kingdom should not be required to contribute to the European Stability Mechanism that will permanently replace both the European Financial Stability Mechanism and the European Financial Stability Facility.
The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 45 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B and D) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 501 / Noes: 18 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15282/10 and Addendum, relating to financial sector taxation; recognises that decisions regarding direct taxes are primarily a matter for sovereign governments; supports the timely action the Government has already taken to introduce a permanent levy on bank balance sheets to ensure that banks make a full and fair contribution in respect of the potential risks they pose to the wider economy; notes that the Government continues to explore the costs and benefits of financial activities taxes and will work with international partners to secure agreement; and further supports the Government’s position that an EU-wide financial transaction tax could lead to the relocation of financial services outside the EU.
The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 223 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Mine is a large constituency. I have urban areas to the north-east and a very large rural area running right up to the Cumbrian border. It includes two areas of outstanding natural beauty and many areas of special scientific interest. Very many of my constituents are “off gas” and rely on heating oil and bottled gas, and some of these would be classified as the rural poor or living in fuel poverty.
I have been made aware in recent months that there are issues in the domestic oil fuel market—rising prices and a lack of regulation and competition—but it has become clear from the level of constituency contact and from the level of desperation expressed that a crisis has been building up since summer last year.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in a constituency such as mine, which is a rural constituency next door to hers, many people do not have a choice about whether to use oil, because there is no access to gas or another alternative fuel?
Pat Glass
I agree, and that is true in many constituencies.
When I contacted the office of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on this issue in early December, I was told that it did not believe that there was a problem and that it did not intend to do anything about it. This contrasts sharply with the experience of my constituents. Mr Kimber, who contacted me on 6 December, told me that the price of heating oil back in early October was 44p a litre. He said:
“Yesterday I obtained a quote online and was shocked to see the price had risen to 65 pence per litre. Today I obtained another quote from the same company and the price has gone up to 79 pence a litre today. How can this be now that the roads are free of snow and passable in nearly all areas locally?”
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My constituency is similar to my hon. Friend’s and also has a rural part to it. People have told me not only that the price has gone up, but that an extra transport cost is loaded on if people want delivery within a short period of time.
Pat Glass
Absolutely. Indeed, another constituent, Mrs Green, told me:
“The cost of heating oil is now nearly 100% higher than just two months ago yet oil prices have increased by just 10%. How can this be justified?”
The answer is that it simply cannot be justified. Indeed, when I and other Members started to ask questions about this issue, I was contacted by a number of people working in the heating oil industry who told me that their employers were telling them to refuse to accept orders of less than 1,000 litres. That meant that members of the public were being refused deliveries unless they were prepared to pay £800, plus the cost of delivery, and let us remember that this was just before Christmas.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she agree that that also applies in rural Somerset? We even have oil co-operatives in rural Somerset, members of which were running out of heating fuel as the winter months came on and the weather got bad, yet they were being charged the same excessively high prices when they were taking the trouble to drive on snowy roads to collect the oil, in containers that they had to purchase for £6 or £7 a piece. Therefore, even people who were not paying delivery charges were paying the equivalent sum, which did not include delivery.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
. I also congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on reiterating how important it is to rural areas. The problem that she described, where oil companies deliver much larger quantities, was compounded by the fact that a lot of them were not telling the customers that they were doing so until the invoice arrived. People who were expecting bills of £200, which is bad enough, were then hit with bills of £800.
Pat Glass
Absolutely, and I am happy to give way to hon. Members from across the House, because this debate is about an issue that affects all our constituencies.
When I first started to investigate the domestic heating oil industry, it became clear to me that it operates in a completely unregulated market, where suppliers can do exactly what they choose. A number of takeovers and mergers in recent years have led to the supply industry being owned by two or three companies. All that has happened quietly, without reference to the Office of Fair Trading or the Competition Commission. Prices are being driven up not by world shortages or global increases in the price of oil, although there is some of that. Rather, prices in this country have gone up by 100% in a very short space of time largely because suppliers have been clearly taking advantage of people in desperate need during the coldest winter in a generation.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady not only for allowing me to intervene, but for bringing this issue to the House. Does she agree that one of the fundamental issues in this debate is the fact that people in rural areas often do not have a choice? The problem with the market is that people do not have a choice over either the oil that they use or the suppliers available to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) should get a word in edgeways before she gives way to another Member, if only to help me remember whose Adjournment debate this actually is.
Sarah Newton
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s generosity in giving way to so many of us, because this debate is clearly about a huge problem across the country. I represent a part of Cornwall where, just as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, there is no choice for people who are off gas. There is no choice of distributors, given what has been happening in the market.
Pat Glass
I am happy that the Minister will be able to speak for himself when the time comes. No doubt he will give us his wisdom on that.
Customers are in the worst possible situation; it is a perfect storm. The market is completely unregulated. Added to that is a lack of competition in the market, where many suppliers are owned by just one or two companies, and suppliers are prepared to charge exorbitant prices simply because they can. On top of all that is the fact that we have just had the coldest winter in living memory.
The biggest supplier is DCC Energy, an Irish company that says it supplies a quarter of this country’s domestic market. It owns 41 heating and oil distribution companies and five price comparison websites. The websites of those 41 wholly DCC-owned companies state that they are independent, and none discloses the extent of DCC’s hold on the British market. DCC has recently been on a spending spree, buying up regional companies. It owns five price comparison websites, including BoilerJuice.
When I and others first raised this issue in the House, The Sunday Times carried out an investigation. It found that BoilerJuice, which is owned by DCC, only compared prices between DCC-owned companies, and that its so-called best deals were up to 65% higher than those of genuine independents. If that is not a deliberate intention to mislead customers, I am not sure what is. Since The Sunday Times outed BoilerJuice, prices have dropped by as much as 63%, which DCC has said was due to “fluctuating market prices”, but neither The Sunday Times nor I could find anything fluctuating in the market other than DCC’s panic.
Energy experts have advised me that DCC might actually control up to 50% of this country’s domestic heating oil market. GB Oils, another big company that is seemingly independent, is in fact a subsidiary of DCC Energy. NWF Fuels is another big player. It markets 14 different brands, including Pace, Fuelcare and WCF Fuels. On the surface, this looks like a market in which there are many suppliers and in which competition will work to keep down prices, but it is quite the opposite.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way to Members on both sides of the Chamber. She said that she wanted to get input from right across the House and across the United Kingdom, and I should like to give her an example from Northern Ireland. Oil comes through the port of Belfast and is then farmed out to all the different areas across the Province. It is the same oil, yet the price fluctuates between £20 and £30 per 800 litres. Does she agree that that is another example of why regulation is much needed?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The whole House will be concerned by the points that my hon. Friend is making, not only about prices and the way in which these companies operate, but about the fact that they seem not to have been considered at all by the Competition Commission? Does she intend to refer the matter to the commission?
Pat Glass
I want to hear what the Minister has to say. Then I will make a decision on that.
In its recent investigation, The Sunday Times found that, on any given day, those price comparison sites quoted exactly the same price, right down to two decimal points. DCC and the other companies that control large parts of the market deny that they are exploiting their market share unfairly to raise prices, or that a cartel is operating to fix prices, but I suggest that the Minister look at the evidence. If he does, he will be able to draw his own conclusions, as I did.
As a new Member, I have been really pleased that we can come to the House and raise issues such as these, when we see a clear injustice in the market, and that they are taken up by the press. These debates are a really powerful tool. Once I and other hon. Members started to raise this issue and the press picked up on it, I was contacted by many people from all across the country. Their interest is echoed by the interest shown here tonight. People were contacting me from places as far apart as south Kent and Northern Ireland. This is not just about my constituency; it is about all our constituencies.
I am grateful that the Government have finally agreed that there is a problem with this market. They have reluctantly and, I have to say, tardily referred these matters to the Office of Fair Trading. There are several questions that I would like the Minister to answer today. When I and others contacted the Department in early December to ask what it intended to do about this, why were we told that the Department did not believe there was a problem and that it did not intend to do anything about it? Why did it take a crisis and investigation by the press before the Minister was prepared to refer this to the Office of Fair Trading? Will he ensure that I and other hon. Members who have raised these issues are able to feed into the OFT investigation? When does he intend to regulate this market either by extending the role of Ofgem or by creating a regulator for the domestic oil and gas industry? Finally, what messages can I give to the many people who have contacted me and other MPs about the actions that the Government intend to take now and in the future to ensure that they are exploited no further?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on securing this debate and on the persistence that she has shown in raising this matter over a number of weeks, both before Christmas and subsequently. I thank her for the correspondence I have received from her. She is absolutely right that this matter affects not just one part but every part of the United Kingdom—very much including Northern Ireland, because of the number of off-gas grid customers who live there. Every part of the country is affected, which is why we take the issue so seriously.
Speaking as a Member with a heavily rural constituency, I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand that I am sympathetic to the plight of many off-grid energy consumers—many living in rural areas, but not exclusively so—who were hit hard by high domestic heating prices and serious supply problems during the severe weather this Christmas. Many of them are fuel-poor, as the hon. Lady says, and as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, many have no choice but to be off the gas grid because the gas grid simply does not exist where they live.
Tessa Munt
I would like to draw attention to some of my constituents who took the trouble to join an oil co-operative in a rural area, but still got hit by this problem. I was contacted, and I would like the Minister to look at the letter that I forwarded to his office. It was from a couple of pensioners who wrote to point out that they would have had to spend between three and three and half months’-worth of their pension money on fuel over the year. That makes a mockery of what is happening in this market.
Charles Hendry
I will certainly look into those matters, and I hope that the hon. Lady has also referred them to the Office of Fair Trading, because that would provide exactly the sort of evidence that it is looking for to contribute to its investigation of this market.
I have been extremely concerned about the many representations that I have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House over the past few weeks, which clearly showed me that the market was not working as we would expect it to do. People who could not afford to pay those bills simply had to make a choice about whether to go without heating or without something else at a very difficult time of the year.
Charles Hendry
I will give way now, but not again, as I am keen to address the points raised in the debate.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister. Millions of people have been taken out of fuel poverty over the last decade or so, with the help of a massive investment, but it strikes me that with the demise of the Warm Front scheme in particular, the Government are now doing less about fuel poverty. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that more will be done in future.
Charles Hendry
I am sorry that that introduces a political note into a debate that has been non-partisan thus far. The Labour Government were committed by law to remove all vulnerable households from fuel poverty by 2010—and their record was one of dismal failure. In fact, the number was up by 3 million on the previous year. That is not exactly a record on the basis of which the hon. Gentleman should be preaching to us.
Underlying many of the complaints are concerns about the challenges of supplying energy to rural communities, and about whether the current market structure provides the reassurance that consumers can get fuels for heating at a price they can afford. There is a specific commitment in the coalition programme to help those in remote rural areas with their fuel costs, as well as to extend protection and support to off-grid energy consumers.
As a shadow Minister last year, I raised many of the issues that the hon. Member for North West Durham has raised now, and I was told that this was how the market had always worked. I am pleased that as a Minister, I have now been able to act on some of those concerns.
As I noted in the fuel poverty debate in January, a significant amount of concern has been expressed by the public, as well as by this House, about the domestic heating oil market. That is clear from the numerous parliamentary questions on the subject, and the issue has featured prominently in my postbag both as a Minister and as a constituency Member of Parliament.
As we all know, the price of heating oil is influenced by a range of factors. They include refinery capacity, stock levels, distribution costs, retail margins and exchange rates. Crude oil prices—which increased by 24% between the end of September the end of January—and seasonal factors also play a role. There were additional costs this winter because of the extra overtime that resulted from our relaxation of drivers’ hours.
The United Kingdom has traditionally operated an open and competitive market for oil and petroleum products, which we believe provides the best long-term guarantee of competitive prices for the consumer. In the light of that, the Government cannot and should not seek to control or influence oil prices, but safeguards exist through the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to ensure that competition is fair.
As an independent and professional organisation, the OFT plays the leading role in promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the United Kingdom, ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive. Its tools to carry out that work are the powers granted to it under consumer and competition legislation. It has a wide range of enforcement tools at its disposal. For instance, under the Competition Act 1998 it can impose heavy financial penalties on companies guilty of breaching competition law, and can refer them to the Competition Commission for closer examination. I urge Members to raise their concerns and those of their constituents directly with the OFT if they have evidence of market abuse. I know that many Members have already done so. They should note that the OFT never confirms or denies the existence of investigations of specific companies, so that it can do its work as independently as possible.
On 21 January I made a written ministerial statement on the off-grid energy market. I noted that the OFT had been consulting on its annual plan to help to determine its work programme for 2011-12. That included proposals to prioritise markets affected by high, rising and volatile commodity prices. The off-gas grid energy market is clearly one such affected market. I am keen for the reasons for the high prices and supply issues affecting domestic consumers to be investigated thoroughly by an independent professional authority such as the OFT.
The recent winter also raised various questions about the minimum volume for heating oil orders. I thank the hon. Lady for the attention that she has given to that issue. Bulk supply by tanker is the most economic form of delivery for heating oil. According to the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers, the meters fitted to most road tankers used to deliver heating oil have a minimum delivery volume of 500 litres, and below that volume the meters are not sufficiently accurate to meet regulation on weights and measures. A while ago, the hon. Lady expressed concern to me about a requirement to take 1,000 litres. That should undoubtedly be investigated, because it does not appear to be borne out by our technical investigations. Pre-packaged smaller volumes of heating oil in containers are available, although the price per litre is often significantly higher than tanker delivery prices, owing to the additional packaging, storage and distribution costs.
As I said in my written ministerial statement, in response to the OFT’s consultation on its annual work programme I wrote to John Fingleton, the chief executive of the OFT, on 19 January asking him to bring forward its competition and consumer study of off-grid energy. The issues involved became particularly acute during the immediate run-up to Christmas. When I tried to order oil for my own home in early December the price was 40p a litre. Three weeks later it was 70p a litre. The severe weather compounded the problems, making a difficult situation potentially catastrophic. We owe a debt of gratitude to the delivery companies and their drivers, who worked long hours, often in difficult conditions, to try to ensure that they reached every home that was running out of oil before Christmas. They did not quite reach everyone, but they improved the position massively.
I also suggested to John Fingleton that the study should explore longer-term consumer issues such as lifetime payback, consumer standards, and labelling for alternative energy sources or supplies. Such a study would provide an independent assessment of the off-grid market, and would be immensely helpful in establishing what further action might be necessary to ensure that it worked properly.
Following my letter and other discussions with my Department, I was pleased when the OFT announced on 25 January that it had brought forward its study to allow time to consider any recommendations before the next winter, and in the light of increasing public concerns about aspects of the market. There will be a market study under powers granted by the Enterprise Act 2002 to examine all issues concerning energy supply to off-grid customers. The OFT is now consulting on the precise terms and scope of its study before the investigation itself formally begins in March.
The OFT proposes that the study should cover the whole of the UK, and has suggested a number of themes including the following: how well competition provides choice for consumers at a local and regional level, in respect of which the monopolistic issues to which the hon. Lady referred are clearly relevant; whether the terms and conditions of supply provide consumers with clear information, competitive prices and fair terms and conditions, which should include addressing the issues the hon. Lady raised in relation to websites which the public would assume are independent; and the experience of customers. The OFT proposes to survey the views of off-grid energy users around the UK. In addition to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and trading standards departments will be involved in this work, to ensure that the full range of concerns are taken properly into account.
The OFT will work closely with Ofgem where issues overlap with those within Ofgem’s jurisdiction. While the study’s focus is not specifically on access to, or use of, the gas and electricity networks, the OFT will be working closely with Ofgem to assess the interaction between access to networks and the development of the off-grid renewables market. The OFT proposes that the market study should consider the supply of off-grid energy, to cover a wide range of domestic energy sources including heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas and renewable energy from a range of sources.
As the Competition Commission completed an in-depth investigation of the LPG market in 2006, with market orders from 2009 to enable switching between suppliers, the OFT also proposes to focus on the effect of those orders so far. The OFT retains an ongoing statutory duty to consider from time to time whether the orders are being complied with. Market studies by the OFT involve an analysis of a particular market with the aim of identifying and addressing any aspects of market failure, from competition issues to consumer detriment, and the effect of Government regulations. This can result in a range of different outcomes. There can be enforcement action by the OFT. There can be a reference to the Competition Commission. There can be recommendations for changes in laws and regulations. There can be recommendations to regulators, self-regulatory bodies and others to consider changes to their rules. There can be recommendations to specific businesses. There can be campaigns to promote consumer education and awareness. Alternatively, a clean bill of health can be issued. It is at this point that we will need to decide whether additional regulatory powers are necessary.
The consultation by the OFT closes on 28 February. The OFT has asked to receive representations from interested parties on the planning scope and issues for the study before formally carrying out its investigation of the off-grid energy market. I reiterate that a market study is distinct from an investigation. A market study is not about any particular company or business, but instead considers the overall market structure. Investigations into specific companies will be prompted by direct evidence of market abuse, and be undertaken separately.
I therefore encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to participate actively in the investigation, and to raise their constituents’ concerns directly with the OFT. We have listened to the concerns expressed from every part of this country, from every political party and from all types of different communities, and we have decided that a full investigation into the way this market is working is now appropriate.
I am very pleased that the OFT is going to take forward that work formally. I believe that it will enable us to ensure that we can learn from the problems experienced this winter and go forward into next winter with a market that is more fit for purpose, so that all our constituents can benefit as we would wish them to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neuromuscular Care (North-West)
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for allocating time for this important subject. I pay tribute to the excellent Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, which does such brilliant work in this field and has assisted me in preparing for the debate. This morning, I will bring to the attention of the Minister the significant gaps in specialist neuromuscular care services in the north-west region that many people living with muscular dystrophy and related neuromuscular conditions currently experience. Vital review work undertaken by the NHS North West specialised commissioning group in the past six months is encouraging, but families need to see it translated into real improvements to services. It also provides an opportunity to improve patient outcomes and to reduce the amount of money spent on unplanned emergency admissions to hospital for people in the north-west with neuromuscular conditions.
Let me briefly outline my personal connection to muscular dystrophy. I am 47 years old, and I had a cousin, Stephen Payne, who, if he was still alive today, would be of the same age. He was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the age of six, and I remember the devastating effects that it had on our family. This was in the late 1960s, when not a lot was known about the condition. I remember my uncle, Mr Barrie Payne, taking his son to Harley street for a diagnosis. I am afraid to say that it was not good. None the less, Mr Barrie Payne is a fighter and a campaigner and he threw all his energies into fundraising to see if a cure could be found for Duchenne.
My very earliest memories, therefore, are of a family fighting and campaigning for a cure for that dreadful disease. I also have very early memories of politicians getting involved in this vital subject. I pay tribute to Lord Alf Morris of Manchester, who, at the time, was the MP for Wythenshawe. Coincidentally, Lord Morris’s sister lived on my council estate, and I remember him driving to our estate in his Wolseley car. At the time, those cars were for very special people. He came to see my family when he visited his sister and I remember thinking at the time what a special man he was. In those days, in the ’60s and ’70s, it was thought that politicians could help ordinary people from working-class backgrounds such as mine. I remember so well the work that my family and Mr Morris did to get a change in legislation. I am pleased to say that Alf Morris was behind the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was the first Act in the world to give rights to people with disabilities.
I did my best to raise money for the muscular dystrophy charity. I used to sell pens, pencils, rulers and pencil cases in my school yard at primary school. Imagine a head teacher allowing a child to go into school with a bag full of goods to sell for cash in these politically correct times. Coincidentally, my head teacher lived next door to my cousin, Stephen Payne, and at school fairs he used every opportunity to raise money for muscular dystrophy.
My uncle continued to campaign to raise money and awareness. People in wheelchairs were often not allowed access to places such as airports and museums, which led to considerable arguments. My uncle rightly felt that people with disabilities should be allowed in. I am glad to say that in the 21st century, things are a lot different.
Stephen was a bright and articulate individual, and he was always forthright in his opinions. He was a Manchester City fan, while I was a Manchester United fan. When Manchester United got relegated in 1973, he certainly let it be known how pleased he was about that. Stephen died in California when he was 21. His peers died when they were in their very early teens, which just goes to show that palliative care and hydrotherapy can extend the lives of people with Duchenne.
The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is the leading UK charity and focuses on all neuromuscular conditions. It is dedicated to improving the lives of all people with such conditions. Founded in 1959, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign funds vital research, provides and supports care services and gives information, advice and direct help to individuals living with neuromuscular conditions. I am honoured to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group for muscular dystrophy, which has highlighted shocking gaps in service across the UK and continues to call for improvements in access to specialist neuromuscular care to follow up recommendations in the Walton report.
There are more than 60 types of muscular dystrophy and related neuromuscular conditions. It is estimated that more than 1,000 children and adults in every million of the population are affected by muscle-wasting neuromuscular diseases—in the north-west around 8,000 people in total. Such disorders can be genetic or acquired. A number of conditions, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, are particularly aggressive. They cause progressive muscle wasting, weakness, orthopaedic deformity and cardiac and respiratory compromise, and result in premature death. Many young boys in the UK with Duchenne muscular dystrophy are dying before they get beyond their teens; that is unacceptable.
Specialist multidisciplinary care has been developed by leading clinicians as the best model for delivering effective care for such complex multi-system diseases. The provision of expert orthopaedics and early cardiac monitoring and intervention has been shown to improve muscle function and maintain independent mobility. People with neuromuscular conditions, therefore, need specialist multidisciplinary care, support and intervention from a range of professionals and specialists. That was recognised as part of the specialised services national definitions set. Leading neuromuscular clinicians fought hard to get those services recognised as specialist by the Department of Health.
Specialised services are defined in law as services with a planning population of more than 1 million people, which means that a specialised service is not provided by every hospital in England. The SSNDS describes the services in more detail. The definitions provide a helpful basis for service reviews and strategic planning, which enables commissioners to make comparisons of activity levels and spend. They help with the identification of activity that should be regarded as specialised and therefore subject to collaborative commissioning arrangements. The 10 specialised commissioning groups, acting on behalf of the members of primary care trusts, are responsible for the commissioning arrangements for specialised services.
Neuromuscular conditions come under the auspices of a number of specialities; they are genetic conditions, so geneticists sometimes deal with patients. The conditions sometimes affect children, so paediatricians are involved. A number of the adult forms come under the heading of neurology. Some of the conditions require respiratory care, which is provided by a respiratory practitioner, and some are metabolic conditions such as Pompe, and patients are treated by specialists for metabolic disorders. Therefore, health care for people is quite fragmented, and that clouds professional responsibility. “Neuromuscular” must be recognised as a speciality along with neurology.
Dr Ros Quinlivan, a leading consultant in paediatrics and neuromuscular disorders, has outlined the effects of neuromuscular conditions and how they need to be managed:
“Neuromuscular conditions are rare and include: Muscular dystrophies, metabolic myopathies, congenital myopathies, inflammatory myopathies, Spinal Muscular Atrophies. Many of these conditions affect only skeletal muscle and thus cannot be considered to be neurological disorders, in fact skeletal muscle can be considered to be the largest organ in the body. Most neuromuscular disorders are genetic in origin and affect families, but the inflammatory myopathies are acquired and require specific treatment. Affected patients range from newborn infants to elderly people. The effect of many of these conditions is on the skeleton causing skeletal deformities due to muscle contractures and on the heart and lungs causing respiratory or cardiac failure which can significantly limit life expectancy.
The physical management of these disorders is quite distinct compared with conditions affecting either the nervous system or the musculo-skeletal system (bone and joints). Proximal and axial muscle weakness caused specific functional difficulties not seen in patients attending clinics in other specialist areas. The progressive nature of these conditions means that a multi-disciplinary approach to care, with experienced clinicians specialising in neuromuscular disorders, is essential to achieve the best outcomes.”
It is now felt by the clinical community that it is time to make a neuromuscular curriculum part of the medical career, to establish the neuromuscular field in its own right. The conditions have a lot in common, so it makes sense that they are treated by the same person. For example, some forms of limb-girdle muscular dystrophy exhibit similar symptoms to some forms of spinal muscular atrophy, but one is a muscle disease and the other more a neurological disease. They are long-term rare conditions, which makes them quite different from neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Neuromuscular services need to be commissioned on a regional basis. Currently they are commissioned by the 10 regional NHS specialised commissioning groups, with top-slicing of PCTs. That method of commissioning services for these rare and very rare conditions has been endorsed by a new body of experts, the British Myology Society. It makes no sense for one PCT to commission specialised services. Unlike conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, there are no guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for these neuromuscular conditions, which presents real difficulties when trying to set standards of care across the country.
That situation has been a contributing factor to the postcode lottery that has arisen, and which was highlighted in the all-party group on muscular dystrophy’s Walton report, published in August 2009. That followed reports by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, as part of the charity’s “Building on the Foundations” campaign, which revealed the shocking lack of specialist care in many parts of the country. The lack of knowledge, training and skills in the sector is a significant concern. For example, there is no specific training or curriculum for neuromuscular services in the neurological field.
I am sure that hon. Members will share my concerns and the frustrations of people living with neuromuscular conditions in the north-west, as expressed in the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s patient survey in 2010. Deborah Hurst from Liverpool is affected by facioscapulohumeral—FSH—muscular dystrophy. However, she was not diagnosed with it until she was in her late thirties. She is now 47. Her two daughters were born before she was correctly diagnosed and one of them, who is now aged 25, has inherited the condition. Deborah says:
“I have two daughters and I knew one was affected, but the doctor told me I was fussing and silly. When I finally got them tested, he congratulated me on my actions, which I was very mad about as my daughter took her diagnosis very badly at the time and ‘congratulations’ was not what we wanted to hear.”
Mrs H from Lancashire has a son affected by a neuromuscular condition. She says that in her experience, GPs do not understand such conditions:
“My GP is very good but says, ‘We have about two hours of tutorial on muscular dystrophy in the whole medical training.’ So therefore they have no in-depth knowledge.”
Elaine Sands from Stockport is also affected by FSH muscular dystrophy. She does not receive any specialist care, but she would value the support of a neuromuscular care adviser. She says:
“As I am housebound, it would be nice to have someone give me physiotherapy and also some kind of visitor who knows about my condition, as I live alone and I would appreciate being able to talk to someone who understands the disease.”
However, the situation is different for Joanne Ashton. She has a five-year-old son, Liam, who has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Through the specialist neuromuscular service at Alder Hey hospital, Joanne and her family have access to a specialist consultant, Dr Stefan Spinty, and to a full multidisciplinary service, including a neuromuscular care adviser. Joanne says:
“Shirley, our Care advisor, is fantastic. We only have to ask and she’s there. Liam had his wish granted, through the “Make A Wish Foundation”, because he was nominated by Shirley. So we are all impressed with the care advisors.”
The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s clinician-led report, “Building on the Foundations in the North West”, which was published in June 2009, made a number of findings about neuromuscular services in the north-west.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. He has rightly referred to the issue of care advisers. Obviously I understand that the north-west of England is his particular concern, but does he agree that if more emphasis were put on having excellent care advisers right across the UK, like the adviser who he has just referred to, that would help those who suffer from this condition immensely in trying to come to terms with it?
Graham Evans
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. When someone is suffering from a condition, there is nothing quite like having people trying to help who understand what they are going through, both physically and mentally. So I wholeheartedly agree.
As I was saying, the “Building on the Foundations in the North West” report found that three out of four neuromuscular patients and their families have no access to a key worker or a care co-ordinator. About 6.5 regional care advisers are needed to serve the estimated 8,000 people —which is up from an earlier estimate of 6,500 people—in the north-west area who have a neuromuscular condition. Many of those people are simply not known to providers of health services.
The report also found that neuromuscular patients have very limited access to treatment, in particular to ongoing physiotherapy. Specialist physiotherapists are required to support outreach clinics and to provide training and professional development for community physiotherapists. In the north-west, two fifths of neuromuscular patients said that they do not receive enough physiotherapy.
Another finding of the report was that there is no dedicated physiological service for neuromuscular patients, despite the importance of such a service as part of multidisciplinary care for that patient group, who have rare and very progressive conditions. Those conditions are often genetic, there are no known cures and there are only limited treatments available. Greater support at the transition from paediatric services to adult services is needed, given the evidence that services are removed or greatly reduced when patients leave paediatric services, even though their needs may well increase given the progressive nature of many of these conditions.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on raising an important subject. In fact, he highlights a very significant problem. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that we need an adequate clinical network for the rare disease that he is speaking about and a range of providers need to be joined seamlessly, as it were, in some way for the good of the patient. Normally, we expect the strategic health authority to identify the failures to provide such a seamless service and to somehow levy the PCTs to deliver it, which the patients expect and deserve. Is he saying that the central problem is how such a service will progress under the new arrangements, when PCTs, SHAs and other such organisations, which are mandated to resolve these problems, no longer exist?
Graham Evans
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a very good point. The new arrangements are a threat, but they are also an opportunity, because services are currently provided by the PCTs but not all of them understand these neuromuscular conditions. The new arrangements are a real opportunity for the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to get its point across, so that we get off on the right foot when the changes come in. However the GP-led consortia really need to understand and appreciate what is required. It is about having a holistic approach. Shortly I will discuss an excellent neuromuscular centre in Cheshire, which makes a huge difference to patients. It encompasses physiotherapy and the other aspects of care that make life so much more comfortable for those people who have muscular dystrophy.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening immediately after another intervention. He has just raised an interesting point about the transition from paediatric services to adult services. In my own area of the south-central region, which is clearly outside the geographical area that is the focus of this debate, we have recently managed to secure at least an advertisement for a new care adviser in the area. However, I understand that that care adviser will not be able to advise on paediatric conditions but only on transition and adult services. Is it not the case that we need a full range of services for all sufferers of this disease and a proper range of advice across all ages?
Graham Evans
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I totally agree. A holistic approach is needed and there should be a seamless transition from being a young person and receiving paediatric services to receiving adult services. However, this point does not just apply to muscular dystrophy. For example, lots of mental health care services suffer from similar problems. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is quite right. There should be a seamless transition from one service to another.
Greater support at transition from paediatric to adult services is necessary to provide evidence of services being removed or greatly reduced when patients leave paediatric services, even though, as I have said, their needs may well increase given the progressive nature of many of these neuromuscular conditions. There is a three-monthly transitional clinic in Manchester and a monthly transitional clinic that alternates between Alder Hey children’s hospital and the Walton centre, which are both in Liverpool. Both those services—in Manchester and Liverpool—are extremely vulnerable and entirely dependent on the availability of their respective consultants. A transitional clinic at Preston is evolving, but it is not formally funded and is based on the good will of the clinicians. The transitional clinic at Alder Hey children’s hospital is the only one that is attended by the required multidisciplinary team. None of the transitional services in the region is funded or appropriately staffed.
The Walton report, published in August 2009, expressed the concerns that the all-party group on muscular dystrophy developed as a result of its inquiry into access to specialist neuromuscular care. Martyn Blenkharn, chair of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s North West Muscle Group, expressed in written evidence to the all-party group his frustrations about attempts to access NHS physiotherapy:
“No hydrotherapy available in the area - private arrangements can be made, but no assistance from NHS physiotherapists can be obtained. Compared with the previous PCT area (North Cumbria) which covered the area where I used to live, the service in my current PCT area (North Lancashire) is totally unsatisfactory - the quality of care from those who treat me directly is fantastic, but their hands are tied to provide what is really needed.”
The all-party group concluded in its regional summary about the NHS North West region:
“We heard from clinicians in the North West region about the problems facing the multi-disciplinary North West Neuromuscular Network - founded and chaired by Dr Stefan Spinty, Consultant Paediatric Neurologist and lead neuromuscular clinician at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool. Dr Spinty is currently managing this vital network single-handedly without any funding. We believe that the Network should at least be supported by a Network Coordinator. Greater support at transition from paediatric to adult services is also needed, given the evidence of services being removed or greatly reduced when people leave paediatric services. Existing transition services are extremely vulnerable and we were concerned to learn from clinicians that none of the transitional services in the region are funded nor appropriately staffed. Having met with commissioners from the North West Specialised Commissioning Group to discuss these concerns, local clinicians and representatives from the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign were disappointed to be told that there are competing priorities in the region, and that PCT budgets were under strain. We urge the North West SCG and the local PCTs to undertake a service review to address the weaknesses highlighted by clinicians, patients and the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign.”
The NHS North West specialised commissioning group has taken significant steps forward since those findings, and I will outline them shortly.
The North West Muscle Group raises awareness of neuromuscular conditions and provides a forum for people living with the condition to share experiences and advice about access to local and regional services. Since its launch in June 2009, the group has been actively campaigning to improve access to neuromuscular services in the region, engaging with MPs and with the NHS North West specialised commissioning group. Pressure from the North West Muscle Group, alongside the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the all-party group, was instrumental in ensuring that the NHS North West specialised commissioning group conducted a thorough review of neuromuscular services.
Joanne Ashton, a member of the North West Muscle Group, commented:
“I’m glad I joined the Muscle Group. It means I’ve got all this information early on and I won’t come up against a brick wall later - I feel I’ve been pre-armed. It’s nice to know I’m not on my own and it’s good to meet other people at different stages. Every day I imagine how bad things could get, but at the Muscle Group I met young lads with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who are in wheelchairs and they’re fantastic, they’re doing so well. Everything had a real positive spin on it too, and I realised that it’s not all doom and gloom.”
The campaign in the north-west was further spurred on by a comment made by Mike Farrar, NHS North West’s chief executive, to Lord Walton of Detchant at an event in Parliament in November 2009. Having referred to the review of neuromuscular services in the south-west, which Sir Ian Carruthers, NHS South West’s chief executive pushed through, Mike Farrar commented:
“Anything Sir Ian Carruthers can do, we can do better”.
As a result of lobbying by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, a review of services was set up in the NHS South West specialised commissioning group in February 2008. In February 2009, local primary care trusts approved a new £1 million neuromuscular strategy to reduce the £6.9 million spent in the region on unplanned emergency admissions to hospital for people with neuromuscular conditions.
I am fully aware, as are several hon. Friends, of the excellent work by the NeuroMuscular Centre in Winsford, Cheshire, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien). That centre provides ongoing specialist physiotherapy, which reduces the number of falls among people with neuromuscular conditions, and it also offers social enterprise opportunities. However, although the physiotherapy provision is regarded as excellent by those who go to the centre, difficulties are encountered with PCTs and funding, as reported in the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s patient survey 2010. Mr A from Cheshire has Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and travels to the centre for specialist physiotherapy and hydrotherapy, but his local PCT is unwilling to pay, despite not offering him any alternative physiotherapy or hydrotherapy provision. Following concerted pressure by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, the North West Muscle Group and the all-party group, Jon Develing, chief officer of the NHS North West specialised commissioning team, made a personal commitment to the all-party group in January to recommend that the NHS North West specialised commissioning group undertake a review of neuromuscular services.
The review was set up by the commissioning group in May 2010, and the steering group set up an effective model for the NHS working with the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, patients and expert clinicians from the region. To further involve people living with neuromuscular conditions, a stakeholder day was held in September 2010, which represented a vital opportunity for people to have their say about the services that are crucial for an acceptable standard of specialist neuromuscular care in the region. That led to a gap analysis and a report with recommendations for service improvements— the first time ever that neuromuscular services have been looked at in this way, across the whole region.
The recommendations are currently being put to local primary care trusts to approve new investment for a neuromuscular strategy. The proposed minimal required investment to reduce the £13.6 million spent on unplanned emergency admissions to hospital for neuromuscular conditions and to sustain neuromuscular services across the north-west includes 2.5 new fully NHS-funded care advisers, 2.5 specialist consultants, two to three specialist physiotherapists and one specialist neuromuscular nurse.
Will the Minister agree to write to the specialised commissioning group and to PCTs, endorsing the recommendations as necessary steps to save money and reduce unplanned emergency admissions? Will he ensure that a named individual in the NHS in the north-west will take the work forward once the specialised commissioning groups disappear? The neuromuscular network approach is hugely important to ensure the co-ordination of neuromuscular services in specialist multidisciplinary teams, as demonstrated in the south-west of England and by the Scottish Muscle Network, and to ensure links to the primary and secondary care that plays a crucial part in the management of neuromuscular conditions.
Dr Stefan Spinty, consultant paediatric neurologist at Alder Hey children’s hospital, who played a leading role in the north-west neuromuscular service review, said:
“In order to improve patient outcomes and help to reduce unnecessary and costly hospital admissions, it is important that the recommendations from the North West Specialised Commissioning Group report, which is due to be published soon, are implemented. All neuromuscular clinicians who have been involved in the North West neuromuscular service review are committed to support the implementation process to further improve and secure service provision for individuals affected by neuromuscular conditions in the future.”
Christine Ogden, a campaigner and fundraiser from Bolton, whose grandson has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, said:
“It is vital, that essential increase in care, support and advice for families outlined in the North West Specialised Commissioning Group’s report recommendations, which will make a real difference for families living with muscle disease. It is also so important that information for health professionals about neuromuscular conditions is significantly developed.”
Beryl Swords from Liverpool, whose son John has FSH muscular dystrophy, has commented on the provision of physiotherapy for adults with neuromuscular conditions:
“I feel strongly that physiotherapy for adults with muscular dystrophy is totally inadequate. If improvements were made to North West neuromuscular services, then perhaps this area of care could be more freely available, keeping people with the condition mobile for longer.”
The urgency of improving neuromuscular services in the north-west is encapsulated in the following comments by Nicci Geraghty, a north-west campaigner and fundraiser:
“I have two nephews with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This is not only a cruel condition for my nephews to suffer from, but also very harrowing at times for us as a family to watch each stage of progression knowing that the postcode lottery already exists throughout the country. This has a huge impact on survival rates and I don’t wish to see my nephews robbed of any chance they have to lead the best quality of life possible.”
The evidence provided makes a compelling case for the urgent necessity of developing and improving neuromuscular services in the north-west in order to save money. Will the Minister write to NICE stressing the importance of a NICE quality standard for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, as well as one on home ventilation and respiratory support? Will he attend the next meeting of the all-party group on muscular dystrophy on Wednesday 9 March to update the group on progress, and will he agree to meet clinicians who have been developing a neuromuscular curriculum with the Association of British Neurologists? Thank you for calling me, Mr Davies.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing this debate, which is important to many people. Although the title of the debate refers to neuromuscular services in the north-west, my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I come from the north-west of a different island. This is not revenge for the map-reading errors that many of us would have heard excuses for over the years in border areas in Northern Ireland, nor is it an attempt to hijack this debate. I want to give positive support to the articulate efforts of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, who spoke compellingly about what muscular dystrophy can mean for the individuals affected and their families.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not have a relative who suffers from muscular dystrophy, but I remember being particularly impressed by a young constituent of mine and his family. My constituent, who unfortunately died a couple of years ago, was named Donovan McKeever. When his parents, Brendan and Teresa, heard Donovan’s diagnosis, they were confounded by the degree to which nobody knew what to say to them or what they were talking about, asking about or looking for. Donovan’s father Brendan wrote a small book about his experience, titled “It Shouldn’t Have to Be Like This”.
Unfortunately, when a child is diagnosed with muscular dystrophy—this also happens with many other conditions, such as autism—parents often have to navigate systems and negotiate between services as though they were the first to find themselves in that situation. The hon. Gentleman’s speech reflected such frustrations. Because people know the good work of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and know that it is a recognised disease, they assume that care services are in place and that the system kicks in and knows what to do, how to pass people on and how to connect services. They assume that key workers exist to ensure that needs are met, whether that involves a disabled facilities grant for adapting housing, or assistance deciding which school environment will be most conducive or accessible. Families need support, and they expect the system to provide it. For people with muscular dystrophy—Donovan had Duchenne muscular dystrophy—that does not always happen.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of care advisers, as did the hon. Member for East Londonderry in his intervention. Northern Ireland has a muscular dystrophy care adviser, but unfortunately the funding for that care adviser is committed only until the end of March, and no long-term funding is in place. Not only are things not as they should be, but the existing service and the commitments that have been made may well disappear in the context of budget squeezes and other changes.
We should use this occasion to call for better services, planning and support, not just in the interest of individuals with such conditions and their families but in the interest of providing well-managed public services and savings. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned unplanned emergency admissions. Some 2,000 people in Northern Ireland suffer from muscular disease, and their unplanned emergency admissions cost at least £2.25 million a year. Better and more appropriate and available services would lead to savings. Making people present themselves in a less appropriate context puts pressure on other services and adds to costs, which is not efficient. Cutting corners in such areas in the name of efficiency savings is wrong, and some of the cuts and squeezes taking place are counter-efficient.
I know that the Minister is particularly concerned about the health services that the hon. Gentleman and I have mentioned. The issues on which patients need to engage the public policy system are not confined to clinical presentations. In the context of some other changes that the Government are introducing, such as changes to disability living allowance and medical assessments, I would hope that the Minister acts as an advocate for patients with muscular dystrophy to ensure that they are not overburdened by medical assessments. They find it difficult enough to navigate the system and get the services that they expect; it should not be made harder for them to get support such as disability living allowance and the mobility component.
On the intended removal of the mobility component of DLA from people in residential care, many young adults with muscular dystrophy choose to live in a residential care setting because of their situation. Their parents may have passed on, and other family members may have moved on. It is nonsense for people who have made that choice to lose the mobility component, with all the social support, access, personal outlets and socialising that it allows. I hope that this debate is not purely about the important issue of clinical and medical services for those with muscular dystrophy; I hope that we will take a holistic approach to people’s particular needs.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned specialist multidisciplinary care. If we break the issue down to our different locations, whether we are talking about the new single commissioner for Northern Ireland, the Health and Social Care Board—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, but I hope that he appreciates that the terms of the debate relate specifically to the north-west. Although his comments on Northern Ireland are interesting, I hope that he will tie them in to the situation in the north-west, as that is the title of the debate.
Mark Durkan
I fully accept your admonition, Mr Davies. I made that point at the start.
If we consider specialist multidisciplinary care in relation only to different localities—whether primary care trusts and GP-led commissioning in the north-west of England or purely within the devolved regions of Scotland or Northern Ireland—we might miss a point. In the case of rarer diseases and conditions, a bigger commitment and wider consideration at a UK level provides a better context of scale. As we have heard, individual GPs sometimes are not good at responding to particular needs or realising the importance of a condition because they do not see enough instances of it. That problem applies not only to GPs but, more broadly, to other services and public management bodies.
I hope that, during the Minister’s tenure, the Joint Ministerial Committee, which brings together Ministers from the devolved entities as well as those from Whitehall, and the British-Irish Council will undertake initiatives to examine whether we can learn lessons from one another. When I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I was privileged to attend the council’s very first meeting. I remember the late Donald Dewar saying that one of the most undervalued art forms was plagiarism and that we needed a vehicle to bring together public policy planners and overseers, such as Ministers, from different parts of these islands. We need that not just in order to see who is doing well at what and to copy them, but in order to be honest and admit what we are all doing badly; to discuss the serious issues that we are not doing enough about; and to constantly agree, as public representatives, that more should be done and that there should be better laws, better services and better funding. If we cannot do enough of that in relation to our own individual pressures, perhaps the British-Irish Council and the Joint Ministerial Committee can together ask some of the fundamental questions, at the heart of government, that were raised by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I have the temerity to believe, Mr Davies, that this debate might finish early, so I will make a brief contribution. I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on introducing the topic. His preamble was very touching—I have a vision of him as an enormously public-spirited child, raising money for charity. He has clearly carried that public-spiritedness into later life and into politics. I disagree with him, however, about the poshness of Wolseley cars—there were certainly some fairly ordinary Wolseley cars in my day.
I want to elaborate on my intervention on the hon. Gentleman. He explicitly said in his articulate presentation that he has some concerns about the abolition of the specialist commissioning bodies that were set up by the strategic health authorities. Such concerns have been generally well recorded by a number of people with an interest in a variety of rare diseases, not just those of a muscular kind. Although renal problems are not particularly rare, the SHA in my constituency has dealt with the huge problem of elderly people needing renal services by saying that those services need to be in Southport where the demand is. A facility has been produced that is beyond the cost limits of the primary care trust: in fact, it is a regional facility and has been established on the basis of a regional strategy.
The case has been well made across the piece that we need specialist commissioning groups. They have been necessary to deal with rare diseases and to construct the necessary clinical networks. Often, people need not a specialist secondary care facility, but adequate facilities and therapies in the primary care setting. Moreover, those facilities need to somehow integrate, talk to one another and form a clinical network.
What will happen when the SHAs and, presumably, the commissioning units that they set up go? I hope that the Minister will solve that problem. There are two possible answers to the question. The first is that we do not know. The other answer—the Minister may wish to enlarge upon this—is that we will get outposts of the national commissioning board that will do very much the same job as the SHAs. If we have regional commissioning groups, which are generally aware of what is required in the region, we replicate the existing solution, which may be perfected and improved in the process. Few would have problems with that. Some would question the necessity to deconstruct then reconstruct everything, but such a solution is acceptable to many who are concerned about a range of rare diseases, including those that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. Therefore, my single, simple contribution to this debate is to pose the Minister a question: is that the solution to the problem and, if not, what is?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is also a pleasure to take part in Westminster Hall debates, which I usually find to be of much higher quality than those in the main Chamber. It is a shame that so few people attend these debates, because they can be outstanding.
I found today’s contribution by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) profoundly moving, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to listen to him. The image of him selling rulers in the playground will stay with me, and those with muscular dystrophy are lucky to have such a passionate and committed campaigner on their side and in their corner. I too shall always remember to plagiarise Donald Dewar, but in a much less generous way than the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). He attributed to Donald Dewar the phrase that plagiarism was undervalued, but I fear that I will simply use it as my own from now on.
Joking aside, this is a serious issue. I was not aware that there are 60 types of muscular dystrophy and that 1,000 children and adults in every 1 million of the population are affected by the disease. It is hugely important to learn such things in my job. It is unfortunate that so few people know about them and that I have to be in this position to learn about them. It is also of great interest that 8,000 people are affected by the condition in the north-west region. We have heard how aggressive Duchenne muscular dystrophy is, and the effect that it has on young boys is a great worry. I have also learned about the stupendous work of Stefan Spinty; it is important to remind the Department of Health that he is trying to run his network without any funding.
In broader terms, treatment for muscular dystrophy in the north-west faces two challenges. The hon. Member for Foyle touched on the first, which is the challenge of cutbacks to services in general. We heard of the cutbacks to special assistance for those with muscular dystrophy in the hon. Gentleman’s area. The cutbacks to mobility and adaptation in relation to people’s homes are larger concerns. Those things are very worrying.
The other challenge relates to the changes in GP commissioning coming at us if the Health and Social Care Bill is passed. We heard this morning that GPs often do not have a great deal of expertise in relation to muscular dystrophy. One could quote statistics that GPs will come across the condition only once or twice a year, but the stories we have heard from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale are more important. He talked about the woman with muscular dystrophy whose daughter clearly had the same condition, but when she told a doctor that there was something wrong with the child, she was told that she was fussing and silly. On the back of that, we heard that doctors have only about two hours of teaching on the condition, so we should all be worried about exactly what will happen to its treatment when GPs take over commissioning. The Government must reassure us about what the specific commissioning pathways will be for this condition, and what the role of the national board will be in relation to muscular dystrophy. It is only right that people with muscular dystrophy, their families and those who represent them are reassured that they will be treated properly and that their particular condition will be treated.
John Pugh
The hon. Lady’s point seems slightly tangential. If her argument is that what is wrong with the arrangements is the current ignorance of GPs about referral pathways, that situation has pre-existed these arrangements and may succeed them. It is an independent issue, is it not? It is not about structures.
Emily Thornberry
As the structures currently stand, it is understood by GPs that they can receive back-up, through the specialised services national definition set, from the various networks that have already been established. If the national health service is to be grabbed by the ankles, turned upside down and shaken hard, the problem is that in the ensuing chaos, GPs will be distracted and, in the short term, people with muscular dystrophy might not get the services that they deserve. That is a legitimate concern, which it is only right to lay at the Minister’s door, because it is this Government who will be putting the national health service through that process.
As I have already asked, will the Minister confirm that specialist neuromuscular services will fall under the remit of the national commissioning board? How will the board work with other services, such as community nursing, speech and language therapy, and continuing care and physiotherapy, which I understand will be commissioned by GPs? How will that work, and how will people with muscular dystrophy not fall between the gaps? Will the Minister provide more information about regional commissioning—already mentioned during the debate—which might arise under the national commissioning board? It would be reassuring for many to learn that the national commissioning board might have regional hubs, but we have yet to hear that stated specifically. If it were to be stated this morning, it would be good news for many people.
The other issue that I know the Minister shares my great passion for and interest in is the importance of increasing integration of services. People with the conditions we are discussing are clearly exactly the sort of people who need integrated services, so that they can have assistance in hospital—hopefully as an out-patient—and care in the community. There is a continuing disconnect between social care and health care. We all know that when those services do not connect properly, people end up as an emergency admission. We have already heard that £68.5 million is spent across England on unpaid emergency hospital admissions for people with muscle disease.
It is clear that savings can be made, and the holy grail for all of us is to ensure that there is better integration between the various services—both between primary and secondary care, and social care and health care. The challenge in the near future is to consider exactly how the Health and Social Care Bill will help with that integration. There is concern that, in fact, it will do the opposite.
It is important that the legacy is protected. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign has been working constructively with the 10 NHS specialised commissioning groups across England, and significant progress has been made on improvements to neuromuscular services and on an increase in the number of muscular dystrophy care advisers. In the context of the changes to the national health service and the cutbacks in funding, there is concern that a lot of that good work may fall by the wayside. This morning would be a timely moment for the Minister to reassure us that the legacy will not be lost. Will he reassure me that the work being carried out by the regional specialised commissioning groups will not be put in jeopardy following the proposed reforms for their abolition?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on the passionate and powerful way in which he clearly set out the case. He has done a great service to the interests of those who suffer from muscular dystrophy and their families. I thank him for securing the debate. I also congratulate him on the work he has done in his role as a member of the all-party group on muscular dystrophy, not only for his region but in raising the issue more thoroughly around the country. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the North West Muscle Group. Both those organisations operate as powerful advocates for people affected by these lifelong and life-limiting conditions.
It is 18 months since the all-party group published the Walton report, which showed how far we had to go—as the hon. Gentleman has described only too clearly— to improve the care of those with muscular dystrophy and other neuromuscular conditions. There are historic weaknesses. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) just now underscored that point. There are weaknesses in the current system and in how we organise the things that have rightly been highlighted by today’s debate.
There is a real sense of urgency for change, not least because of the simple fact that we know about the huge personal and family costs of this condition and how it impacts upon people’s lives. Unless care is properly co-ordinated and well conducted, NHS resources will be wasted. They will be invested in the wrong places and will not deliver good outcomes. That cannot be acceptable in our modern health care system. Several colleagues alluded to the costs. The figure of £13.6 million was mentioned as the overall cost of unplanned hospital admissions for those with neuromuscular conditions in the north-west. If we analyse the journeys that people make through our health care system, that shows the actual cost.
Some hospital admissions are necessary and unavoidable. A person who contracts a respiratory infection is a good example of where there is an unavoidable need. However, if we consider the figures in greater detail, the number of people admitted for non-invasive, elective care, shows that there are many preventable costs in the system. That amounts to just under £5 million in the north-west alone. Those costs could be avoided and the money could be spent better. That has to be a key message. It is not just about spending more; it is also about spending better in our system. We need to ensure that we consider the economic case for investing wisely in services that can, in fact, provide a better quality of life. We must also ensure that we avoid unnecessary admissions in the first place.
Positive steps have been taken in the north-west. That progress has been hard fought, and it deserves to be recognised and applauded. Indeed, the strategic health authority has told me that £4.2 million has been spent on developing neuromuscular services over the past four years. As mentioned, a dedicated neuromuscular service at Alder Hey has been set up to provide excellent care for children. Out of that £4.2 million, £289,000 was invested as a commitment to the service provided and led by Dr Spinty. There appear to be some grounds for dispute over whether such services are funded or unfunded. However, we certainly need to keep ensuring that resources go in. There is a case to be made for ensuring that resources are well spent. Paediatric critical care services have improved with a dedicated paediatric intensive care transport team. There are additional beds at Alder Hey and the Royal Manchester for ventilation services, with similar investment in both invasive and non-invasive respiratory services for adults, too.
Although those developments are welcome, the local NHS accepts that many issues still have to be addressed, many of which have been aired today. The specialised commissioning group is responding to the Walton review by reviewing the region’s neuromuscular services. In essence, that review group—made up of clinicians, commissioners, patients and families—is aiming to address exactly the issues aired today: how to improve the poor support available to those diagnosed with neuromuscular conditions in adulthood; how to address the variability and patchiness in the availability of specialised neuro-rehab and wheelchair services; and how to improve transitional arrangements to help young people to move from paediatric to adult services. That is an absolutely key issue that comes up time and again in relation to rarer conditions when considering how well or how poorly the NHS manages those vital transitions from child and adolescent services to adult services.
The review group has updated the all-party group on muscular dystrophy on the review’s progress. On the kind invitation that has been extended to me to attend the meeting of the all-party group, I do not know whether I can attend on the specific date mentioned. However, I will certainly undertake to attend a meeting of the group as soon as I can and take questions from the group’s members.
I understand that the NHS North West specialised commissioning group will consider the review’s recommendations in March, and that the full report will be published shortly after. Clearly, I do not wish to pre-empt that report in any way but, based on the conversations I have been having in preparation for the debate, I think that the review team is asking some important and necessary questions. Those questions are on sharing best practice to ensure greater consistency, on work force planning, so that there is better co-ordination and leadership across care pathways, and on finding efficiencies across the system in line with the region’s quality, innovation, prevention and productivity plans.
The key to all of this is to have a much clearer split of responsibility—a sense of joined-up access across the care pathways to deliver a less fragmented and more person-centred approach to planning. I will say a bit more about the point that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) raised on that in a moment. For me, the greatest challenge for the modern NHS is how to make sure that we have much more joined-up delivery. We have to accept that care and support for those with long-term conditions is a particular area where we do not get it right often enough, and it is unfinished business. There is too often a disconnect between what is commissioned at a regional level by specialised commissioning groups and what is available at a local level as commissioned by primary care trusts. It not only confuses patients and compromises both their care and quality of life; it also leads to inefficiency and duplication within the system.
Putting that right means thinking radically. It means putting greater emphasis on managing pain and helping people with multiple conditions. It means finally developing a personalised system to end the attachment to bricks and mortar institutions and to reinvent health care in a modern context—a health system that is much more about what can be delivered in the home and in the community than it is about clinics and consulting groups.
When it comes to long-term conditions such as muscular dystrophy, attention tends to fall on specialised commissioning groups, and that is what has been rightly talked about today—the response in terms of tertiary care. Tertiary care is clearly important. We can see, from the important work at Alder Hey and Royal Manchester children’s hospital, the difference that such specialist centres can make. However, there also needs to be an equal onus on community-based support—the ongoing day-to-day care that is so important to support quality of life and to keep people out of hospital in the first place.
Primary care trusts and in the future GP commissioning consortia and health and well-being boards, not the specialised commissioning teams, will be responsible for that. They will shape the services that clinicians and social care need to provide to meet the needs of patients, such as hydrotherapy, wheelchair services, speech and language therapy, respiratory support and help with swallowing. It is therefore essential to have better co-ordination, a better link-up between commissioning teams across health and social care and beyond, and, rather than individual bits, a person-centred approach to planning across the whole care pathway. That needs a whole life course approach, which is why I return to the point that we need a focus on transitions between childhood services and adult services. The review’s recommendations will help to bring that about in the north-west. I look forward, as I am sure the hon. Member for Weaver Vale does, to its publication and to it being put into effect.
To take the case of specialist physiotherapy, the SHA recognises that there is pressure on tertiary centres, which is something that the hon. Gentleman talked about. The challenge must be met by a whole system approach that makes full use of the available resources. NHS North West tells me that it is already mapping out in more detail what neurophysiotherapy services are available across the north-west. The current specialist physiotherapists are being encouraged to work with community physiotherapy to improve their skills and to help them to offer appropriate services at a local level. That outreach to upskill other parts of the work force will be a key way to improve delivery. I understand that Manchester PCT is also doing some exciting work in piloting a neuro-rehab service that treats people at home or in the community, rather than in a clinic. That brings into relief the potential benefits of integrating tertiary and community-based services—of how, by doing things differently, we can improve services for patients.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the NICE guidelines. He is absolutely correct, as are other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate: we need greater consistency, and being more consistent means being clear about what “good” looks like. I have already mentioned NHS North West’s neuromuscular services framework, which is a helpful starting point for bringing different organisations together. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport also raised the issue of the need for clinical networks, and I will say a bit more about that in a moment. The review group is also making the case for the clinical networks and clinical network managers to provide leadership, to share best practice, and to provide challenge to commissioners. Again, that would seem to be a sensible approach not just in the north-west, but around the country. I would expect the NHS commissioning board to help to take that forward when it takes up the reins of specialist commissioning.
Of course, another issue mentioned by hon. Members is the need for clear guidelines and quality standards from NICE to cover muscular dystrophy and various aspects of the delivery of care and treatment for people with the condition. I hope that Members understand that it is not for me to direct NICE. Its strength as an organisation rests on its independence from Government, and therefore I will not compromise that. What I will do, and which is important to do, is ensure that it is made aware of today’s debate, so that it can take it into account in its deliberations. The East of England specialised commissioning group is leading on quality standards work and service specifications, so there is work to help influence that going forward.
Another influence on NICE are the conversations with the leadership group of the Neurological Alliance on how it can develop stronger clinical advice for a range of rare neurological conditions. I strongly urge the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to actively engage with that leadership group, so that it is also at the table with NICE. NICE is part of that forum, which presents an important opportunity to achieve faster progress and effective action. We are also, in the context of the work of health and well-being boards and GP commissioning consortia, looking at how to update the guidance for joint strategic needs assessments. I urge the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to have an input, through the Neurological Alliance, on that work, too.
Equally, the National Quality Board is working on a broad library of quality standards to cover all areas of NHS care. Again, there will be opportunities for the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and others to feed into that process. Input through the leadership group of the Neurological Alliance would be a very effective way of getting its voice heard.
Careers and training have been referred to in the debate. I suggest that, rather than a Minister trying to dare to dictate the curricula of the medical professions, it might be more prudent to ensure that they are also aware of this debate, with a covering letter from me to draw it to their attention so that they can take it into account as they reflect on future curricula.
On the issue of advice and support for patients, a strong case has been made for the case-management approach. It is important that we look outwards to patients and their families. At the moment, people with long-term conditions can feel disempowered and frustrated by the complexity of the system. It can be a fight, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale has described, to understand what is available. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) rightly said, it should not be the case that every time someone enters the system it feels like they are navigating it for the first time, as if no one else has ever gone through that before. That is a perfect way of describing how the system should not feel and how it must not feel as we go forward. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale described the example of Liam. That example makes a very strong case for increasing the number of neuromuscular care co-ordinators, who are known to be extremely helpful in improving patient care and outcomes. I understand that that is something that the review group is exploring and it will, through its contracting arrangements that go beyond that, help to drive that forward. I have no doubt in my mind that there is a strong economic case for the co-ordinators.
I am also pleased that the Manchester PCT is looking at how personal budgets can be used to help people with neuromuscular conditions to get the help they need. Personal budgets are more than a lever to give patients more control. They can be a catalyst for bringing services together around the needs of the individual—another way in which we can integrate at an individual level. In fact, a number of the pilots that are testing personal health budgets are actively involving people with neuromuscular conditions.
The final question, asked by both my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, is how do we maintain continuity during the transition period? The Health and Social Care Bill is clear that highly specialised services would, in future, be commissioned by the NHS commissioning board. I can confirm that this condition is included among them, as it is already designated as a specialist commissioning area. The board will decide how best to organise itself to deliver, on a case-by-case basis, different commissioning activities on different specialist conditions. It would be wrong, when the Government are saying in the Bill that we are giving autonomy to an NHS commissioning board, for the Minister to then specify, in an Adjournment debate, to the nth degree precisely how the NHS commissioning board should discharge that function.
The NHS commissioning board has that responsibility, and that comes with a responsibility on patient and public engagement as well. It is important that lessons from existing experience of specialised commissioning are drawn together to inform the way in which those responsibilities are discharged in the new system. I will undertake to ensure that this debate is drawn to the attention of those who are doing that work at the moment. Again, I think that the Specialised Healthcare Alliance provides the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign with a way in to influence and shape those opportunities. I note from comments to the Health Committee before the general election that there was a recognition that we could do much more by moving to a national commissioning board that can streamline, simplify and ensure greater consistency around contracting for these services.
That brings me to the other element of the new architecture, which is general practitioner commissioning consortia. Clearly, integrated planning between consortia and the NHS commissioning board will be essential, just as joint working between primary care trusts and specialised commissioning groups is at present. I am keen that strategic health authorities will encourage GP pathfinders, along with the early implementers of health and well-being boards, to work with the specialised commissioning groups to explore how the relationship can work best on the ground so that we develop the best case examples to inform the system as we move to the new arrangements.
As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale rightly highlighted, GP consortia will need advice and guidance as they take up the reins. There will be a great opportunity for patient groups to step in and provide support in that way, and I would certainly encourage that kind of active engagement. Also, health and well-being boards will have a key role as system integrators—they will have a major part to play in developing the more joined-up system. We will consider whether that is enough or whether we need to do more as we scrutinise the Health and Social Care Bill clause by clause in the coming weeks. The most effective way of operating will be through the regional networks that the Neurological Alliance is setting up. Again, I hope that the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign will be part of that.
Yes, we have to ensure that we get specialist commissioning right, but we also have to ensure that we get commissioning for long-term conditions in general right, and we have to do that at a local level.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for setting out the issues so clearly, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. We know that there is much to do to improve the care of those with neuromuscular conditions, and that we are not doing enough yet. We know that the system that we inherited has not delivered uniform and consistent access to services—we must do more. We also know that financial pressures should not block progress because, all too often, action here saves money that can then be better spent on improving the quality of services.
I look forward to reading the final report of the north-west review group—and, indeed, the other reviews that are taking place—and I hope that it can be a catalyst for real improvements in the years ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to translate the intentions behind the review into tangible actions that transform the lives of his and many other hon. Members’ constituents up and down the land.
Unscrupulous Builders
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Davies, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I welcome the Minister, and look forward to his response after we have all spoken.
As an officer of the all-party groups on ageing and older people and on consumer affairs and trading standards, I feel that the issue of unscrupulous builders is of the utmost importance and warrants the thorough consideration it will be given now. I come from a business background—I run a small company and have worked as a business development director in the corporate sector—so I am not a politician whose default position is, “Let’s have more regulation.” However, in the building and renovation trade, many rogue builders across the UK have been ripping people off for far too long.
In my judgment, something must be done, and the Government must take steps to protect vulnerable people from cowboy builders. There are three core issues to address: first, the routine targeting of the most vulnerable people in our society; secondly, the way that unscrupulous traders create an unfair marketplace and plague the legitimate building industry; and thirdly, how we can act to stop the proliferation of fraudulent work.
Recently, a rogue trader was convicted in my constituency. That was a good result considering how difficult it is to prosecute such criminals under current legislation. During the proceedings, it came to light that he had accepted cash and cheques from customers in Eastbourne for sums of up to £23,000. One of the victims was an elderly widower, which is not uncommon. He received redress from the television show “Cowboy Builders.” The programme surprised my constituent by fixing the damage done to his property while he was in hospital recovering from a heart attack. That was a good deed and much appreciated, even if it was for the purposes of entertainment. Although we can take comfort from the happy ending to my constituent’s ordeal, it is unacceptable that he felt compelled to turn to a television show rather than to the authorities. However, given the lack of adequate, robust legislation to protect citizens from such criminals, his decision is easily understood and was, frankly, wholly rational.
We have a duty to those whom we serve to do something about the weakness of the current legislation, and I hope that colleagues will join me in calling for a formal consultation into the merits of a compulsory licensing system for the construction industry. Gangs such as the group of Gloucestershire scam builders convicted and jailed in January for defrauding householders of nearly £1 million cannot be allowed to continue unabated. The three men involved conned more than 50 people in 14 counties, and I extend my sincere appreciation to Gloucestershire police, who worked tirelessly and diligently throughout the three-year investigation to bring the fraudsters to justice. I echo the sentiments of the detective chief inspector who led the investigation. He characterised the perpetrators as, “Criminals, pure and simple.”
Such unlawful behaviour must be taken seriously. Consumer rights experts report an average of 100,000 complaints about rogue builders each year, and trading standards organisations reveal that £170 million is stolen from UK home owners by cowboy builders every year. We are told that 2.4 million people have had problems with cold-calling property repairers; it is imperative that we take action.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and support the clarity that he seeks through a licensing regime. Does he agree that one of the strongest arguments in favour of that is the frustration shared by many of our constituents? One of my constituents, in pursuit of justice after an experience with a cowboy builder, has written to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Insolvency Service, the Property Ombudsman, the Legal Complaints Service and the Trading Standards Institute, but so far to no avail. I welcome my hon. Friend’s attempts to bring some clarity to this area of concern.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely well-made intervention. I have heard about such cases again and again both in my constituency and as an officer of the all-party group for consumer affairs and trading standards. We are in a ludicrous position where criminals are ripping off people, often elderly people, up and down the country. However, because they are clever at using—or abusing—the law, it is almost impossible to pin them down and seek redress. That is an absurdity, and times need to change.
The issue is not simply about providing adequate protection to the public; the trouble caused by such activities is far-reaching and widespread. I know some tremendous local builders in Eastbourne, but the actions of the cowboy builders impede legitimate businesses and create an unfair marketplace for the many—the vast majority of builders, renovation companies and tradespeople who are wholly legitimate. The problem causes particular difficulty for the small firms that we are counting on to help bring us out of recession. Because the unscrupulous individuals who prey on the public operate outside the law, they often do not pay VAT. That gives cowboy builders an illegitimate financial advantage by enabling them to charge much lower prices—20% lower—than responsible legitimate companies, thereby distorting the marketplace and creating unfair competition.
That practice results in a significant loss of tax revenue, because much of the work that would be invoiced is currently paid cash in hand and is off the books, resulting in an enormous revenue loss to the Exchequer. Given the current economic situation, it would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to clamp down on such behaviour. It is deeply unfair to law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes to continue allowing fraudsters and charlatan building companies not to contribute their fair share. Beyond that, a further worry must be addressed. Around 80% of the informal economy—sometimes known as the black economy—is work undertaken by companies that are completely outside the tax system. I have already mentioned VAT, but such evaders are much more likely to avoid other key legal obligations, such as health and safety legislation. That puts their customers not only at a financial, pecuniary risk, but at physical risk.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Everyone has seen the programme, “Cowboy Builders”, that the hon. Gentleman referred to. It illustrates that a small number of people will take advantage of vulnerable people. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that one way of monitoring and keeping an eye on things and regulating the system would be to use local government to oversee work and say whether it should be passed? Perhaps that would be one way of resolving the situation.
Stephen Lloyd
That is a good point. It is not the conclusion that I have reached, but it is a strong point. The challenge with local government oversight is that it varies a lot around the country. Some local authorities would make it a high priority, while others would not. It is an option, but the conclusion I have drawn is that the Government must start taking steps to look at a licensing proposal.
I am aware that there are already programmes to help regulate the construction industry and mitigate fears, and I do not wish to undermine the valuable work of organisations such as TrustMark and the National House-Building Council. However, those schemes are taken up mainly by large companies that operate at national or regional level, and they are not the problem. The administration and cost involved in registering with such schemes is a natural deterrent to the individuals and small firms that I, and many of my colleagues, want to help. Because the vast majority of substandard work is carried out by individuals or small gangs of rogue builders, the current measures are inadequate.
According to Local Authority Building Control, TrustMark has insufficient funding to deal with the problem. Therefore, we need serious consideration about how to proceed with more effective methods of regulation. The seriousness of the matter is heightened by the well-known target of the illegitimate traders—older people, who are often the most vulnerable in our society. An ageing population coupled with increased home ownership necessitates a Government response.
Between 1981 and 2001, the proportion of the population over 75 years old increased by more than 30%. The number of pensioners living alone increased by 150,000 between 1991 and 2002, and now accounts for 14.4% of all households. That means that there are now more than 5 million pensioner-only households. Let me be clear: MPs in the House know that unscrupulous builders target vulnerable, often elderly, people. That is a growing market, and unless something is done, those builders will have ever more opportunities to rip people off.
Numerous investigations have shown that unscrupulous builders are taking full advantage of the gaps in our legislation and our rising pensioner population. Crooked salespeople are commonly overbearing, persistent and totally unscrupulous. That is a particular problem for older people, as they often live alone and are trapped by such intrusive door-to-door sales techniques. Once a salesperson is in their home, a vulnerable individual has limited means by which to end the transaction. The option of asking someone to leave is not always available to them because many home owners feel too intimidated in that situation to broach things so directly. That may sound absurd, but our experience as Members of Parliament, dealing with a large amount of casework and listening to constituents, who are often elderly, means that we know that they will be too frightened to ask the cowboy builder to leave.
When hard-sell tactics are used, many individuals feel trapped in their homes and have nowhere to retreat, leading to increased pressure and a desire to rid their home of the unwanted guests as quickly as possible, often—crucially—by accepting the service being offered. In fact, there are even reports of people being driven to their bank immediately to draw out large sums of money when faced with threatening demands.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing a debate that is important to constituents from throughout the country and represented by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Does he agree that one way in which we could consider regulating the sector is by extending what we have done with the gas industry to the building industry? The Gas Safe register gives older people confidence that the engineers coming into their home are qualified and professional.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a good idea as long as it is managed properly. My concern is that it might end up a bit like TrustMark. Many people do not know about that scheme and even among those who do know about it, there is some concern that it is not robustly policed. I like the idea, but we have come to the point when we need to introduce licensing. I will explain how I propose that we fund it.
In my judgment and that of many others, none of the current legislation is able sufficiently to protect the public from such threats. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me because I am going to give them a bit of a history lesson. The Pedlars Act 1871—that is a wonderful phrase; “the Pedlars Act”—excludes virtually all callers involving property maintenance and repairs. The cancellation of contract concluded away from business premises section of the consumer protection regulations is an important statutory consumer measure, but it will generally offer little or no protection from criminal practices when the traders’ names and addresses are not known. Large amounts of cash change hands, yet there is no intention of operating in a fair manner. That is absolutely appalling. It is systemic and we simply cannot let it continue. Section 16 of the Theft Act 1968 has left a loophole in legislation, as its definition of theft covers only actions when a person, by deception, dishonestly obtains property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Cowboy builders are fully aware of the flaw in consumer protection and know that as long as they carry out at least some activity, the incident will be classified as a contractual disagreement and therefore not a criminal offence. Prosecution of those perpetrators is very tough, as the necessary evidence is often very difficult to obtain; I could go on and on. That is why the market has been expanding and the actions of those deplorable individuals have got bigger every year. They know the law is an ass.
There is a logistical problem for any witnesses asked to stand up in court and face those who wronged them. That is a particular concern when the victims are already among the most vulnerable. It is another reason why action must be taken to halt the spread of these fraudulent criminals.
I am coming to the end of my speech because I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply. In raising these issues, I make it absolutely clear that I do not want to cast aspersions on the legitimate business men and women who provide an important and welcome buildings and renovation service to many people up and down the country. In my constituency, a noted builder, Ellis Builders, has given me advice on how I can present and pitch a proposal in a way that will work for legitimate builders. I appreciate the support that its managing director, Derek Godfrey, gave me.
We must consider the possible courses of action open to us and the ways in which we can aid genuine tradesmen and end the scourge of rogue builders. Naturally, a central aspect of any reform would have to be an increase in public awareness. The public must know how to confirm whether the workers being hired are legitimate. One reason why the current voluntary schemes are ineffectual is the lack of public knowledge surrounding programmes such as TrustMark. I believe that to make any significant advance in protecting the well-being of individuals, it is critical that we provide one clear method for assessing the competence of a building tradesman. On that point, I agree with the National Federation of Roofing Contractors and join it in advocating a means of appraisal that will provide confidence that the tradesman or woman in someone’s home is competent, trustworthy and reliable.
There are many ways in which that may be achieved. Successful licensing schemes already operating in Australia and the US could provide a useful starting point for the consultation that surely must follow this debate. However, at such a difficult time for our economy, I appreciate that we must be extremely careful not to overburden a crucial sector of that economy—construction. It is necessary to strike a careful balance. We need to provide regulation and protection for the consumer on the one hand without disproportionately increasing costs or deterring compliance on the other.
It is time to consider seriously a national licensing scheme. The fee need not be too expensive. It could be £500 per annum and tiered, with smaller companies paying less and larger ones more. Any legitimate builder would see that as a worthwhile investment in their business. It would give the public the security of knowing that a builder was licensed. They could say to someone, “Do you have a licence?” If the answer was no, they could say, “You won’t be doing any work in my home.” If the answer was yes, they could open the door. In my judgment, that sum, if it was tiered as well, would be sufficient to fund a licensing body.
We cannot keep sweeping this issue under the carpet. The legitimate building trade—companies of all sizes—deserves more. The public deserve more. We can do more. To misquote the great and one and only Gary Cooper, “It is time to run the cowboys out of town.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on securing the debate. I thank all hon. Members for contributing. Listening to my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) in particular, it was clear that this issue affects many of our constituents. I can confirm that it has affected my constituents. I represented one of my own members of staff on this issue. She ended up having to use the TV programme dealing with cowboy builders to sort out the problem. Through dealing with that, I understood how difficult these problems can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was therefore right to bring the issue to the House. Although I do not agree with his proposal for a compulsory licensing scheme, let me say up front that I hope that when he hears some of my other remarks, he will know that the Government take the issue seriously, along with many other consumer affairs where there is consumer detriment. Some of the general reforms that we want to make and the general research that we are undertaking will help to ensure that this issue and others like it can be better dealt with in future.
Let me say for the record, and so that my hon. Friend understands why I am less attracted by his proposal, that there are issues of practicality and proportionality, which I know that he, as a small business person, will be very mindful of. Many people are employed in the construction industry. The UK construction industry is one of the largest in Europe, with more than 2 million people employed and 200,000 businesses. That gives a sense of what a compulsory licensing scheme would have to do and the sheer scale and size of it. That would bring with it costs and complexity.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, some rogue, cowboy builders behave appallingly, but we must balance a number of issues as we put together our measures, and I hope to reassure him about those measures in the course of my speech. I am sure that he will agree that the vast majority of people operating in the construction industry do good jobs, work hard and perform well. We are talking about a relatively small number of rogue traders, and the question, therefore, is whether we put huge cost and complexity on 2 million people and 200,000 businesses to target that tiny minority. I say that not least because it is unclear whether a compulsory licence scheme would deal with the rogues who tend to work outside the system. One would have to be sure, even under my hon. Friend’s proposals, that the enforcement measures were such that one could catch these people. I have some concerns about such issues, not least when they are married to the costs and complexities that would come about under such a scheme.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend about one or two points that came up in the debate. We want a proportionate scheme. Through licensing and regulation, we want to target those trades where there is a high risk to public safety, and my hon. Friend’s points about health and safety were extremely well made. That is why the gas safe register scheme, which used to be known as the CORGI scheme, is important. It deals with the technical competence of people who ply their trade. There is also the competent persons scheme for electrical work. Clearly, gas and electricity raise other issues, and we need to ensure that they are properly regulated. However, it would be disproportionate to have similar schemes for the work done by painters, decorators and others.
I hope my hon. Friend realises that we are trying to take a proportionate approach that ensures that while legitimate businesses doing a fantastic job are not penalised with costs, measures are targeted on the real cowboys. If my hon. Friend looks at the legislative framework, he will see that it is designed to clamp down on underhand practices. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 requires traders to provide a service with reasonable care and skill, in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. The Government are examining how the Act might be modernised and simplified so that consumers have a clearer understanding of their rights, including their rights to redress when they have experienced shoddy workmanship or paid for goods that turn out to be defective. I hope that that work will lead to ideas that improve the situation.
The general consumer rights set out in the Act are accompanied by specific legislation to protect consumers from unfair selling in their own home. Builders, of course, fall within the scope of those provisions. The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008—I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar with them—give consumers the right to cancel a contract they have signed without penalty within seven days. That cooling-off period is a valuable protection, especially for those who may have felt pressurised into agreeing to have work done as a result of the tactics of an unscrupulous builder. My hon. Friend will note that those regulations came in in 2008, and they are still being rolled out, so an understanding of them is still developing among many trading standards officers and the wider public. Those measures are in place, however, and I think that they will be increasingly effective.
As regards other protections given to consumers, it is important to ensure that the enforcers—at national level, it is the Office of Fair Trading, but there are also local authority trading standards officers—have the right tools at their disposal to deal with dodgy builders. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008—again, they are relatively recent—give the enforcement bodies more effective means of tackling unscrupulous practices and rogue traders. Indeed, they ban traders in all sectors from unfair commercial practices against consumers, particularly in relation to the sale and marketing of services. They set out broad rules, which enforcers can use to determine whether a practice is unfair. As I said about the other set of regulations from 2008, these regulations are still relatively new. Trading standards officers are beginning to use them and beginning to understand their use. The regulations are spreading best practice. These tools have come into the toolkit relatively recently, and they will help. They also ban any commercial practices that use harassment, coercion or undue influence that is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice in relation to goods or services.
If we take those various measures together, it is clear that the legislative framework is quite robust, but I would not claim that it is perfect, and we always need to think about how it could be improved. That is why the Government support a project being undertaken jointly by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission to examine how private law might be reformed to provide consumers with a clear, simple right of redress when they are victims of misleading or aggressive selling. My hon. Friend may be aware of that because it comes from a Liberal Democrat consumer document called “Are you being served?”, which he may have read before the election.
In addition to providing effective remedies for people who have suffered at the hands of rip-off builders, it is important that we put resources into preventing problems from occurring in the first place. At the end of last year, we announced £3.2 million of funding for scambuster teams so that they can continue the fight against rogue traders and builders who deliberately set out to defraud consumers. The fact that we have been able to continue this important work, despite the tough choices that we have had to make elsewhere, is a clear sign of how important we think this issue is. Rogue builders and others who prey on vulnerable and elderly people will not be tolerated, and scambuster teams will lead the fight against them. My hon. Friend valiantly champions the needs of elderly people in all areas of public policy, and I hope that he will talk to scambuster teams in his area to ensure that constituents who are occasionally preyed on by rogue builders are aware of the teams’ work.
I appreciate that it can be difficult for consumers to judge whether a builder is genuine. For extra peace of mind, therefore, they can look for tradespeople who belong to approved traders schemes. This is where the TrustMark scheme, which has been mentioned, comes in. TrustMark is an easy way for consumers to identify a builder who has agreed to abide by industry standards of competence and fair trading and to be independently inspected to ensure that they are meeting those standards—the point my hon. Friend made about enforcement. Those in the industry who are approved by one of the operators of the TrustMark scheme are independently inspected, which can give people reassurance. This is a free service to the consumer. Last year, there were 3.5 million inquiries, with people checking out builders and other tradespeople. My hon. Friend is right that we need to raise awareness of the scheme, but the 3.5 million inquiries last year suggest that an awful lot of people are aware of it. That awareness is growing, and we need to continue to help it grow. In addition to the TrustMark scheme, many local authorities run assured trader schemes in their areas to help residents find trustworthy local builders. Again, I would encourage consumers to use those schemes wherever they exist.
The debate is timely because we need to ensure that colleagues across the House and others who are interested in this issue know that the Government take it seriously. As we look at general consumer legislation and do a lot of detailed work on it and the consumer landscape, we will be thinking about the difficult cases that have been mentioned. In the back of our minds, we will be thinking about how provisions will apply to cases in which constituents have been very badly done by. I give my hon. Friend my assurance as consumer affairs Minister that the Government will bear such cases in mind as we review the legislation— indeed, we are doing that very actively.
I reassure my hon. Friend that regulations are now in force—I admit that they are very recent—and that they will assist our work. I assure him that TrustMark is a very good scheme, and I would encourage hon. Members to promulgate it, and local authority trader schemes, when they talk to constituents.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for bringing this matter to the House. Although I have not been tempted by the compulsory licence scheme that he so eloquently proposed, I hope that I have reassured him that many other measures that are in place, or which we are considering, will have a good effect on the problems that he raised.
Flood Risk Management
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
There is a contradiction at the heart of the Government’s policy on flood alleviation. In answer to a parliamentary question about flood risk, the Minister told me that
“The latest UK climate science confirms that rising sea levels and more severe and frequent rain storms are likely to occur—resulting in increasing flood and coastal erosion risk.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 922W.]
He said that the Environment Agency suggests that river flows may increase by 20% by later this century.
On the same day but in answer to another question, the Minister said that the flood risk management budget, paid by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Environment Agency, would fall from £354 million this financial year—the Government inherited that figure from the former Labour Administration—to £259 million next year. That is a reduction of 27%. It does not make sense to reduce public investment in flood risk management when those risks, and the costs that flow from those risks, are increasing.
Capital funding in Yorkshire has been hit harder than in any other region. According to a letter from the deputy chairman of the Environment Agency to the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee, funding has fallen by more than 50% compared with last year. Why has my region suffered a larger cut in Government funding than all the others?
The consequences for Yorkshire have been blunt. Three schemes in the Environment Agency’s programme were to have gone ahead in 2011-12. All three have been axed. The York scheme would have provided improved flood defences for the Water End and Leeman road areas of the city. There was a scheme for Thirsk. There was a large scheme to protect Leeds city centre, and York still needs flood defences to be provided in the Clementhorpe area, but that was not included in the original programme.
The Environment Agency tells me that those schemes have been deferred indefinitely, but I was pleased to hear the Minister saying in response to an urgent question in the House earlier today that the schemes have not been cancelled. Will he explain to my constituents the exact status of those schemes? If they have not been cancelled, I presume that it is envisaged that they will go ahead. Will he give us a time scale for when those schemes are to go ahead?
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is considerable urgency for flood schemes in the city of York? I shall be talking about Leeds later, but when I lived in the city of York the Kings Arms was flooded almost to extinction almost every other year. Does he not agree that we badly need these schemes, especially those for York and Leeds?
Hugh Bayley
The River Ouse, which flows through the centre of York, drains water from about 3,000 sq km of the Pennines. When there is heavy rainfall, the river rises enormously. At the moment, York has severe floods; the river has risen by about 15 feet above its summer level. When that happens, the Kings Arms public house gets flooded. I am sorry to say that there is no defence in the world that will stop it being flooded several times a year. It almost trades on the novelty of being built in such a way that people can simply hose down the mess and get on with the drinking.
Hundreds of private homes in York—and hundreds of businesses in York; I shall say more about them later—suffer catastrophically when the river rises. In 2000, when the River Ouse rose to its highest recorded level in 400 years, some 350 homes were flooded, and hundreds more came within a whisker of devastation. I left my job as a junior Minister then and went back to York to join Silver Command, which managed the crisis. I remember clearly the November night when hundreds of local residents and 500 soldiers from the 2nd Signal Regiment were sandbagging the Leeman road and Water End area, putting sandbags on top of the existing flood defences to protect the homes behind. Those homes came within a centimetre of being inundated. About 380 homes most certainly would have been inundated, and perhaps another 120 were at risk. Indeed, the leader of York city council was evacuated from his home; he lived in the area at the time.
I shall quote from a statement prepared for this debate by York city council’s chief engineer:
“Water End is shown in the York Strategic Flood Risk Plan as being an area of Rapid Inundation and failure of the existing defences in times of a severe flood could result in a depth of water inside properties in excess of l m, in a very short period of time.”
I remember preparing evacuation plans 10 years ago. Our fear was not that we would have seepage and slowly rising water levels in people’s homes, but that the flood defences might collapse. The engineers believed that that was a real danger, so much so that we tipped thousands of tons of sand and gravel behind the built flood defences to strengthen them. If they had collapsed, we could have had a wall of water running through the centre of York, which would have caused absolute devastation.
The City of York council received advice from the Association of British Insurers about the cost of repairs if the Leeman road and Water End flood defences were overtopped. The calculations were based on 382 homes being inundated. ABI’s advice was that the cost of repairing each of those homes would be between £20,000 and £40,000. The total cost of repairs for one flooding event would be £11.5 million, almost twice the cost of the flood defence scheme that the Environment Agency has deferred. The community largely consists of two-bedroom Victorian railway cottages. Many of them are privately rented, and others are owned by people on low to modest incomes—the priority group that the Government say should be helped by the new flood defence plans.
Ten years ago, 100 or so homes in the Clementhorpe area of York were inundated. It received a lot of attention because one of the streets involved is called River street. The papers all carried pictures of firemen evacuating people by boat. That area, too, needs protection. A temporary scheme has been provided by a private benefactor, but it does not work as the council would like, so it is not being used at the moment. Before this debate, I asked the Association of British Insurers and individual insurers, and I am grateful for their advice. For obvious reasons, insurers are always cautious about telling the public how much they pay out in claims. One told me that in York it has paid out £12.5 million in claims for flood damage—800 claims in all—over the past decade. The claims peaked in 2000 when it paid out in respect of 286 properties, and again in 2007 when it paid out in respect of 247 properties. The average claim per property flooded was £25,000.
When we debate the problems and risks of flooding, we often talk about home owners and households. It is quite right that individual people—our constituents—should be at the front of our minds, but we must not forget that businesses are very seriously affected, too. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is nodding his head. He has had a much more recent experience of flooding than, thankfully, we have had in York.
In response to the Government cuts in capital flood defence schemes, Gary Williamson, the chief executive of the Leeds, York and North Yorkshire chamber of commerce said:
“I find it extremely concerning that the Government would take such a gamble with York and North Yorkshire economies. The cost of flood damage can have a devastating effect on businesses and is something that small, independent businesses and retailers may struggle to recover from.”
The impact of the floods in 2000 on businesses in York was catastrophic. Visits to main attractions, such as York Minster and the Jorvik Viking Centre, dropped by 94%, from 5,425 in November 1999 to 356 in November 2000. Once the flood had gone, the number of visits was down by 86%. Bed occupancy in hotels was down by a third. Retail business was down between 30% and 50%—it varied from shop to shop—in the busy pre-Christmas shopping period. The York Minster shop suffered a 72% fall in sales. Overall, as a result of the floods in 2000, there were 200,000 fewer visitors to the city, costing something in the region of £10 million, and that ignores all the other business and commerce in the city that suffered as a result of the flood and the subsequent severing of a railway line. The railway is an extremely important commercial highway, pipeline or communication link for York. When the line just south of York in Selby was severed by the flooding, it cost the city far, far more.
What will the Minister do to get the Leeman road and Water End scheme back on track, working with me, as MP for the city, and the local authority, the City of York council? Like all hon. Members, I understand that the country’s macro-economic position is weak. In the last published quarterly figures, we learned that the economy had contracted by 0.5%. Economists are now asking what the Chancellor’s plan B is should the country fall back into recession; in other words, two consecutive quarters of contraction of the national economy. Of course Labour has argued that the deficit must be brought under control, but the way in which the Chancellor is doing that is too fast and the cuts that he is implementing are too deep. In the run-up to the Budget, the Chancellor will obviously be considering his options. He may not announce it in the Budget, but it is perfectly obvious to all of us in this Chamber that the Treasury is considering a plan B. If the Chancellor were to respond to the worsening economic situation by relaxing the pace of public expenditure cuts, the most obvious place to provide an expansion—or perhaps a lesser contraction—of public expenditure would be in relation to capital schemes. We know that there is a current account deficit, but even when Governments are running a current account deficit, they continue to invest over the long term, and rightly so. When someone buys a house, they take out a mortgage for 25 years. When the Government invest in flood defences, they also need to borrow and pay back over a long period of time and pay back, because flood risk is a long-term risk and the flood defence will be there for 50 or 100 years and the capital scheme needs to be financed over that period.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
Perhaps the best example that I can give my hon. Friend is Carlisle in Cumbria, which was flooded a number of years ago. In 2009, as a result of a £35 million investment in flood defences, Carlisle did not flood. As a Government, we spent £35 million to prevent flooding. If we had not spent that amount and Carlisle had been flooded, it is estimated that it would have cost between £70 million and £80 million to clean up and repair the damage. Surely that is a good example of how we need to spend in the short term to ensure that we are not stacking up long-term problems.
Hugh Bayley
My hon. Friend gives an extremely good example. The Environment Agency says that the cost-benefit ratio of its schemes in the pipeline are 8:1, which was confirmed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s recent excellent report on flood and water management legislation. That means that we get back much more than we pay. If we leave it to each individual to try to insure themselves—if they are able to insure themselves—the cost to them and the private insurance companies will be much greater than the cost of investing in flood protection. Moreover, if we were to relax the squeeze on publicly funded capital schemes, the jobs that would be created would be in the private sector, precisely where we need to create jobs to pull the economy back on track and to get the Government’s fiscal position looking better than it does now.
I ask the Minister to talk this matter through with the Treasury in the run-up to the Budget. I do not expect any feedback in the purdah period before the Budget. None the less, I hope that his Department will make representations, so that if the Chancellor is talking about relaxing the squeeze on public expenditure, he looks at capital works, particularly the cost-effective investments in flood alleviation.
I will try to be brief because I know many Members want to speak. The City of York council and the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee are considering alternative sources of funding for the Leeman road and Water End scheme, including the possibility of funding from the European Union, which is available to support businesses. I have talked earlier about the enormous impact that flooding can have on commerce. Is the Minister prepared to work with the council and the Environment Agency to try to get support for such a scheme?
Consultation documents from the Minister’s Department reveal that the Government are seeking to transfer part of the cost of providing flood defences from central Government budgets to local communities. I am not making a particular point about that, but I hope that the Minister will listen and focus on what I am saying. He can describe it slightly differently if he wants. It would be a mistake to have a flood tax added to local authority taxation because the boundaries of local authorities do not match the boundaries of river catchment areas. If we are planning to deal with flood waters, we need to plan for the river catchment as a whole.
When York floods, we provide a service for places upstream, because we take the water away from them and prevent them from flooding. Equally, when Selby floods it does a service for the city of York, as it takes our water away and saves us from flooding. That is precisely what Selby is doing at the moment and hopefully it will not flood as a consequence. We are interdependent—that is how nature works—and the funding response needs to take account of how nature works and be based on river catchments rather than local authority areas.
One way in which we might do that is through giving responsibility, in part or in whole, to water and sewage management companies, which of course have been set up to follow river catchment areas. We talk about the “Severn Trent” region. Why is that a region? It is a region because anyone extracting water needs to follow the river courses. Equally, anyone dealing with flood water needs to follow the river courses.
It would be wholly unfair if people in York had to pay for draining water away from upland areas on the east side of the Pennines—the 300,000 square kilometres of land that York drains—or if Leeds city centre had to pay for draining water away from people living upstream in the Wharfe valley. Yet it would be fair for people living in those valley catchments to work out collectively how to deal with the water as a whole. That is what the Environment Agency says they need to do.
Hugh Bayley
I will give way in just a moment.
I see excellent work that the Environment Agency has done upstream from York, creating small ponds on agricultural land, planting trees and building dams that can be closed at times when there is a lot of water, so that water can be stored. If we can slow the run-off, we can convert an 18-foot flood over 24 hours in York, which would be catastrophic, into a 15-foot flood over three days in York, which would be quite manageable. The Minister will have seen such schemes. They exist because we cannot expect small communities—working village by village, town by town, city by city—to protect themselves without a scheme being worked out for the catchment area as a whole.
I ask the Minister to consider an interesting proposal that has been put to me by Yorkshire Water that the company could perhaps buy flood defence infrastructure from the Environment Agency, which would give the Government a capital receipt. Yorkshire Water would be able to do so because it can go to equity markets, which a Government cannot do. Of course such a scheme would increase the cost of water, because the company would have to repay the cost of managing floods more effectively. However, it would mean that those increased charges were spread across the river catchment area as a whole—upstream and downstream communities—rather than on downstream communities exclusively.
Hugh Bayley
I said that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will do so, then I will give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and then I will sit down.
Neil Carmichael
I just want to support what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about the need to think strategically. In my constituency of Stroud we have the Slad valley, which is a relatively small valley. However, if we had a co-operative Environment Agency, a less rigorous interpretation of the water directive and a general willingness to allow local people to do what they think should be done we would solve a huge number of problems for Stroud, which has nearly 5,000 houses in total that are vulnerable to flooding. My appeal is for more local flexibility, so that we can take action and implement flood alleviation measures.
Hugh Bayley
I am glad to receive support from the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will join me in saying that these risks, which people in both our constituencies face, are present and real risks now and that we need Government funding now to address them. I say that because by the time that we work out a new system in five years’ time, our constituencies might have flooded.
In fairness to everyone else who wants to speak, I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and then I will draw my remarks to a close.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I just want to make the point that upstream flooding, which the hon. Gentleman describes as a form of alleviation in main urban centres, has a cost for the agricultural communities in the areas concerned. Even as far away as Northumberland, we were aware that in east Yorkshire there was considerable resistance to such schemes, but they are an essential part of flood management. Nevertheless, it requires a lot of co-operation and discussion with the farming community, to ensure that a proper balance of interests is recognised.
Hugh Bayley
That is obviously right and it is a very important contribution. We cannot get flood risk management for free, whether it involves building flood defences in York city centre or paying farmers to let their winter cropping fields flood at a time when they would otherwise be planting root vegetables or some other crop. However, it might be both cheaper and more environmentally sustainable to pay the farmers to grow more trees, create ponds and use other measures to retain some of the water long enough to protect downstream areas from inundation.
I could say much more about the consultation documents, about what the insurers are telling me or about the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, but I will sit down now so that other Members can have their say.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Sheridan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am somewhat nervous, because I have known the gentleman sitting to the left of you—the Clerk, Mr Hennessy—for 30 years and I have never spoken in front of him before. It is a new experience for me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate. As Members may know, I will bore for Britain on the topic of coastal defences and, of course, river defences too. I mentioned the issue of flood defences in my maiden speech and in recent debates on shoreline management plans, and I will continue to do so because it is absolutely the No. 1 defining issue in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal.
I pay tribute to the Minister who is here today. He is actually very popular in our constituency, not only because he yet again confirmed the situation regarding Felixstowe’s flood defences in the main Chamber earlier today but because he visited my constituency. When he did so, people liked the fact that he listened, reflected on the facts and actually did something about them. We have seen that in some of the thinking expressed in the consultation paper and also in his encouragement of officials at the Environment Agency and Natural England to do the right thing by working with local people and landowners, to get more for less out of the budget. Sadly, due to the economic legacy that we inherited, that budget is slightly reduced from what we would of course like it to be.
In fact, I will go further and say that the Minister has been so successful that the risk is that he will get promoted, but we desperately do not want that to happen because we need him to sort out the fish problem too. Having said that, I will move on to other issues.
I generally welcome the change in thinking on flood defences. For me, there is an incentive, as that change in thinking will help people and communities who help themselves. It is that partnership model that I recognise, but it is a model that still provides protection, within the funding formula, so that where there are wards of deprivation the formula acknowledges that deprivation and will work towards alleviating it.
That gives a fresh element of hope to my constituents who, under the shoreline management plans, were told, “You’re on your own”. Actually, this new model is a way forward. The Minister has already seen some of the schemes in my area that I want to commend to the House. For example, at Bawdsey there was a situation whereby the economic benefits under the calculations did not derive any financing in particular. What happened was that some local farmers came together and offered up land for development. The local council agreed to grant planning permission for houses to be built on that land. Together the council and the farmers put the money from that development into a trust, which has now paid for coastal defences to protect the area around Bawdsey for some time to come.
More recently, in Thorpeness local home owners came together—I must admit that not all of them did so; one or two decided not to put their hands in their pockets. However, the rest came together and said, “We want to protect our shoreline along here”, and the Environment Agency, working with Suffolk Coastal district council, came up with a scheme that will make a difference to people’s lives.
There are ideas for future schemes. I am hesitant to speak about them, but one can see other opportunities whereby communities decide to have infrastructure development. I say that I am hesitant to speak about them, because I do not want my constituents to write in and say, “Thérèse Coffey demands turbine be placed in Felixstowe”; nor do I want my local paper to get the wrong end of the stick. However, there is an opportunity for communities around the country to come up with imaginative ideas for possible schemes.
For example, if we had a wind turbine in Felixstowe, that would work in a high wind when the port itself, down the road, is closed, because the cranes there cannot operate in high winds. That would contribute to the local economy, and the income could be ring-fenced and put into future sustainable defences, not only for Felixstowe itself but for areas, such as Felixstowe Ferry, at the mouth of the River Deben, that face particular difficulties at the moment. The Environment Agency is being very kind at the moment, but I recognise that that kindness cannot go on for ever with our future policy.
I am also interested to learn from the Minister how the pathfinder evaluations might fit into the consultation on the future of funding for flood defences and whether any element of that evaluation process will be incorporated in the consultation.
In Happisburgh, people are very excited because they have been offered some compensation for their houses that are about to fall into the sea. I mentioned that in the shoreline management plans debate, but unfortunately the Minister was in Brussels at the time, trying to do his best for us on fish. Although flooding is terribly disruptive to home owners in places such as York, the water normally goes away, and repairs are needed, but the risk with erosion is that it is terminal. Once someone’s house has gone into the sea, it has gone; not only that, the owner is liable for its safe disposal. With a ’60s or ’70s house with lots of asbestos in it, the owner might be able to apply for a grant of up to £5,000, but that might not cover the costs. The Pitt review constantly referred to in the consultation is based on fluvial flooding rather than on coastal erosion, which has been an add-on.
One thing that is mentioned in the document is that with homes built since 2009 it is the developers who are supposed to take on the flood risk. That is a reasonable suggestion, and I hope that anyone who has bought a house in a flood-risk area since 2009 realises that. With good design, housing can be a lot more resilient to flooding.
Under OM1 in the consultation, I am slightly disappointed to note that the agricultural land value estimate has not been updated or upgraded since the 2007 comprehensive spending review, despite in the other part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs there being thoughts on food security and about ensuring that we have that element. It would have been nice to see a slightly more generous value attributed to agricultural land.
Under OM5 to OM7, a lot of money is set aside per acre and per hectare for the recreation or preservation of habitats, to comply with the European habitats and water directives, and that, I am afraid, reinforces the view held by some that nature is more important than people. OM3 gives the figure of £3,050 rental income per year for properties at risk of coastal erosion. In my constituency, trying to rent a coastal property for £3,050 a year simply would not happen—a beach hut, perhaps, would be about it. The figure is probably more generous than it has been previously, but I urge the Department to think again on that.
I have to hold my hand up: I have not yet gone through the document with a fine-toothed comb, but will be working on that to ensure that I get my consultation response in by 16 February. However, the document contains some very encouraging phrases that reinforce the principle of partnership and give an opportunity to constituents who are being told that there is no public funding available for them.
I shall finish on two issues, one of which is the cost of delivery. There is an element of red tape in councils, with planning permission, and there are the aspects of the costliness of permits and studies for Natural England, and the consents from the Environment Agency. I know that the Minister has already taken action, and is committed to removing as many blocks as possible to make it as easy and cheap as possible for land owners to protect their defences—all force to his elbow. The Environment Agency told me a couple of weeks ago that it would not prevent land owners in “no active intervention” areas under the shoreline management plans from defending their property. That came as a bit of a surprise yesterday to some of the people at the all-party coastal and marine parliamentary group, and it was thrown up— perhaps anecdotally; I do not have enough evidence—that the Environment Agency might say that but Natural England will stop us anyway.
Sir Alan Beith
There is a tendency for one agency to say that the other agency will not allow it to do something, but in my experience getting them all together in the same room—ideally on site—means that some of that starts to fall away. Fruitful co-operation between agencies is the way forward, instead of blaming someone else for not doing something.
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am relaying some of the anecdotes about the frustrations of landowners, but I agree that getting people in the same room to talk things through leads to constructive solutions, once the initial hurdles have been surmounted.
On the funding process, one of my local Suffolk Coastal councillors, Andy Smith, who is a lead council member on coastal matters, has raised with me the annual allocation of funding process. Some schemes take more than a year, and things are unclear or uncertain. There could be a project that was agreed a couple of years previously but which constantly comes up for review regarding the annual allocation of cash. There is something not quite right with that process, and I hope that we can get it right.
Finally, I am encouraging internal drainage boards to participate in the consultation because they could be effective delivery partners for a lot of the work that we want to do. IDBs are not the only solution, but they are a good one. They combine local landowners and councillors, and have an element of democratic authority. The future is quite bright, and could be very bright for coastal and river defences, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the policies of the previous Government, of making 100-year decisions on the basis of three years’ funding, are a thing of the past. There are many generations of families in Suffolk who have done their bit for their bit of land over the years, passing it on from generation to generation. Let us not kill off the chances of this generation for the sake of 100-year hindsight.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) for initiating the debate this afternoon.
After the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), had made a statement to the House on flooding on 17 December 2008, I asked him a question about his proposed trial areas for surface water management in Leeds. My question was about an area in the Roundhay ward of my constituency called the Wellhouses—a series of residential streets through the middle of which runs Gledhow beck. I had been approached by local residents who were concerned that they had the responsibility for maintaining the banks of the beck, which frequently overflows during heavy rain, exacerbated by the excessive outflows of water from the balancing lake in Roundhay park. As always, my right hon. Friend was courteous and helpful in his reply, and promised to let me know whether Gledhow beck would come under his plans to transfer surface water management to local authorities such as Leeds—one of his trial areas—in 2011. The subsequent answer was that it would.
Surface water management might appear to many to be a rather dry and uninteresting issue until their homes are flooded by exceptional rainfall or overflowing balancing lakes. I took up the issue affecting the residents of the Wellhouses because I was shown first hand the appalling damage that could be done in an instant to the homes of people I am privileged to represent. Most people never give a moment’s thought to the merest possibility of their homes being flooded, until it happens.
It is true that many parts of the hilly city of Leeds will never be in danger of flooding. Where I am fortunate to live—in Pudsey to the west of the city, between Leeds and Bradford—we are more than 650 feet above sea level and can be complacent. However, much of Leeds is built around the River Aire, and is therefore susceptible to flooding. On 15 June 2007, Leeds city centre came very close indeed to being overwhelmed by water, after days of appalling weather when a whole month’s rainfall fell in 24 hours—Leeds was not unique in that, that summer. Many city centre roads were under water, and the city almost came to a juddering, squelchy halt. On 27 June 2007, the Yorkshire Evening Post reported that more than 6 cm of rain had fallen during the previous nine hours,
“causing millions of pounds worth of damage to flooded homes, schools and businesses. Dozens of trains were cancelled and roads were gridlocked as the city tried to cope with the torrential downpour, the heaviest on a single day for 50 years.”
Suzanne McTaggart’s report added:
“The latest stormy weather comes after heavy rain hit Leeds just over a week ago, when rivers threatened to burst their banks and roads became waterways. Many areas saw six weeks worth of rain in just 24 hours yesterday…making this the wettest June ever—and possibly the wettest month since Met Office records began in 1882.”
On its excellent website, the Environment Agency says of its proposed Leeds River Aire flood alleviation scheme:
“Leeds has suffered from localised flooding in recent years which caused significant disruption to local residents, businesses and commuters. However, these floods were relatively small and there is always the risk of a much larger flood.”
The Environment Agency’s latest briefing on the Leeds scheme tells us that the agency is now working closely with Leeds city council to come up with an affordable scheme. It estimates that the current comprehensive scheme would cost about £190 million and would involve building raised defences on the River Aire, thus directly protecting 255 residential and 495 commercial properties and indirectly helping to avoid the flooding of 3,800 residential and commercial properties. The briefing suggests that if the city of Leeds were inundated by floodwater, the damage would total at least £480 million —several times the cost of the flood defences. DEFRA has asked the Environment Agency to continue working with Leeds city council to secure alternative sources of funding or to find ways to reduce the costs of the project, but initial indications from DEFRA, which I understand have now been confirmed, show that sufficient funding will not be available in 2011-12 to proceed to detailed design.
I intend no disrespect to my good friends who represent the great Yorkshire cities of Hull, Bradford and Sheffield, or, of course, to the wonderful people who live in those cities, when I say that Leeds is without doubt the engine of the whole Yorkshire regional economy. Like every other city in the UK, with the possible exception of London, Leeds has been badly hit by the economic downturn, but it still draws in tens of thousands of commuters every day, who come to work in the many businesses, legal practices and financial institutions that operate from Leeds city centre. Leeds is still the largest financial centre in England outside London—hon. Members can forget about Manchester. Imagine what would happen if the “relatively small” floods in 2007 became a much larger flood, as the Environment Agency fears they might, swamping the centre of Leeds, its wealth-generating businesses and its newly built apartments and homes.
Spending a relatively small amount now could, however, help to prevent catastrophe in the future. With climate change making rainfall in these islands ever more unpredictable, the River Aire will burst its banks sooner or later and drown our city. Not only will thousands of homes be affected, but millions, if not billions, of pounds of business activity will be halted, and thousands of hard-working citizens will have their jobs or their lives ruined—all for the want of the flood defences that could have been built, but which the Government cut because the deficit simply had to be repaid in four years, rather than five, six or even seven. [Interruption.] Sorry, does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) want to intervene?
Fabian Hamilton
In the summer of 2009, I was approached by the residents of Valley terrace, which is in an area of housing just off the Leeds outer ring road, in the Roundhay ward. They were upset that woodland between their homes and the noisy, busy dual-carriageway ring road was to be destroyed and built on by developers.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I assume that the hon. Gentleman’s city, like my constituency, suffered bad floods in 2007. If it did, he should surely attach some of the blame for the lack of action on building flood defences to the Labour Government, rather than blaming this Government, who have had only six months to do anything about this.
Hugh Bayley
I have fought hard for 10 years for flood defences to be improved in York and I would accept—
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Why did the Labour Government not do anything about it?
Hugh Bayley
Will the hon. Gentleman listen for a minute? I accept that the Labour Government, who put in millions of pounds and improved many flood defences, protecting some areas of the city, did not finish the job. However, I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who I hope will have the opportunity to speak, that while Labour was in power, we increased Government funding to the Environment Agency for flood risk management from £249 million in 2000 to more than £500 million in 2008-09—in other words, we more than doubled it. We provided funding for more flood management and protection schemes than was the case before. Our concern is that this Government are reducing funding.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. I was going to respond simply by saying that we cannot design flood defences in two or three years; it takes a long time to make sure that we have the protection that is appropriate to the environment and needs of a particular area to ensure that the system will work. A great deal of research has to go into these issues, from not only the Environment Agency, but every other agency involved. That is why these things were not done instantly after the 2007 floods.
Let me return to the points I was trying to make about the little piece of land between the ring road and Valley terrace. Some may accuse my constituents there of being no more than nimbys—that stands for “not in my back yard”—who do not want any further development now that they have their homes in such a lovely area. However, I supported their bid to stop the planning application, which would have destroyed that small area of woodland, because the woodland soaks up rainwater coming down from the hills into the valley where the ring road is situated. I am increasingly concerned—I would be interested in the Minister’s response—that planning authorities are allowing more homes to be built on woodland with no regard to the excessive surface water drainage problems that might occur as a result. I am delighted to say that planning permission was refused on this occasion—whether that was to do with my intervention, I simply cannot say.
That brings me back to the Wellhouses. June 2008 saw the publication of a not very entertaining, but very important DEFRA report, entitled “The West Garforth Integrated Urban Drainage Pilot Study”—hon. Members should try saying that when they have had a few drinks. Among its many conclusions was:
“The report shows that, as soon as serious resources are made available for investigating flooding problems and inspecting the condition of culverted watercourses, then opportunities for relatively modest actions become apparent that can have a significant beneficial impact.”
I am grateful to the Environment Agency, the leader of Leeds city council—Councillor Keith Wakefield—the Leeds, York and North Yorkshire chamber of commerce and my friend and constituent, Chris Say, for all their help in getting me the information, facts and figures on which I have based my contribution. This is an important issue for every resident of Leeds and has an impact on a much wider population. I therefore hope the Government are listening and will make our flood defences a priority at a time when money is in short supply—the futures of so many, and the economy of a whole region, depend on it.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
It would be unfair of those of us from Leeds to take up all the time, because flooding is such an important matter, which affects people directly and in such a traumatic way, and other hon. Members must have their opportunity. I will therefore be very quick.
I had the opportunity to raise a question about this issue with the Minister on the Floor of the House earlier this afternoon. I should say that I am not making a political point. I will certainly not get involved in any political nonsense about which Government spent more. We are where we are, and we can settle political differences and arguments elsewhere. We are talking about flooding, which, as we all know, affects people in a very personal way. I say that in my defence. What I would also say, however, in what I hope will be a brief speech is that one difficulty with flooding assistance is that it seems to relate, on a cost-benefit basis, to the number of households. That is where the Minister and I were at cross purposes earlier this afternoon.
To illustrate what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) was saying, let me use the words of the flood risk manager in Leeds, who puts the case better than I could:
“the Government should treat this scheme as a special case”—
which is fine; we would expect him to say that. He continued by saying that
“a major flood to Leeds could set the economic recovery of the north back many years and the cost of that would far exceed the cost of the works.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East mentioned the £500 million of damage that could be done. I do not know whether the Minister has been to Leeds, but the river runs through the business and retail centre—the river and the canal run below the main train station—and it is a compact city centre, which flooding would damage tremendously.
The Environment Agency brief—when I mentioned it previously, the Secretary of State was talking to the Minister and seemed to disagree—stated:
“The city centre escaped inundation by a matter of centimetres in 2000, and there were further near misses in 2004, 2007 and 2008.”
I simply make the point to the Minister that the major economic centre and engine for growth for millions of people in west Yorkshire is the Leeds centre, and it has come disastrously near being put out of operation in a major way. The train station is built over the rivers. The 2000 flood threatened electricity supply in the city centre, which, in turn, threatened the major Leeds general infirmary. This is a question of a major catastrophe. The Minister will not think I am doing him any favours, but I do not want him to be on world or national television in his wellies standing looking at a flooded national city—the largest in the north. I do not want that to happen, for the sake of the city and its people and the surrounding towns and cities. That is how close we are, if the matter is judged on number of households and cost.
We are where we are. It is accepted that any Government would have to pull back the deficit, whatever the time scale. These are difficult times and priorities must be set. I understand the situation. I even offer something additional—without being patronising. I shall say this so that the Minister can use it against me—and the city—but I think that the scheme was designed in slightly better times. I question the £190 million scheme, especially given the number of schemes lining up throughout the city. In the Chamber, the Minister offered a meeting. I should welcome one, but its outcome would be to make it clear to the Environment Agency and the city, within agreed parameters, if possible, what type of scheme and expenditure are realistic in this day and age. We would say “Go away and if you can get something within those parameters we will look at the design work.” We are not speaking about this year or next year. The design work would be started on a more modest, but realistic, scheme. That would help.
There is an additional way in which it would help. The Minister will appreciate the problems. Quite rightly the previous and present Governments have told the city to get private involvement. Businesses and houses are being saved, and there is development, so they have told it to put some funding in and it has found, it thinks, £20 million. That is a lot of money but when it is compared with a £190 million scheme one might say, “I think you’ll have to do better,” and that causes problems. What if we were all to meet in a room and say, “Let’s get real with one another; let’s get this scheme down”? The city centre must be protected and we cannot have a national economic asset knocked out—but the work should not be at any price. We should get a realistic price and a realistic public contribution, and all agree to do the work as quickly as possible.
As I am chairing a Committee upstairs at a quarter to 4, I shall have to leave the debate, and I give my apologies now—I am not leaving out of disrespect. However, I should hope that the Minister would see my remarks as helpful. They are heartfelt on behalf of the city of Leeds, and west Yorkshire.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing a timely debate on the same day as today’s announcement.
In my own patch in Wansbeck, following the most intense rainfall in living memory on 5 and 6 September 2008, a month’s rain fell in 24 hours, which meant that the river Wansbeck burst its banks and the whole town of Morpeth was flooded. That was compounded by other flooding problems including flooding from the Cotting burn, the Church burn and the Postern burn in Morpeth. There was extensive flooding throughout the town centre and nearly 1,000 properties, including many businesses on the main street, were directly affected, causing huge problems. Hundreds of residents had to be evacuated and emergency shelter was provided in the King Edward VI high school, at county hall and in the town hall in Morpeth. Iconic buildings such as the chantry and St George’s church suffered considerable damage, as did landmark shops. The emergency ambulance station, the doctors’ surgery, the health centre at Gas House lane, the Riverside leisure centre and the town’s main library were also inundated and had to close for a considerable period.
Firefighters, ambulance crews, the RAF, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the British Red Cross were among the emergency services involved in the rescue and recovery operations over the whole weekend. A collection of voluntary groups and the town’s churches came together to help hundreds of flood victims and the campaign was spearheaded by the Morpeth Lions club. Families were out of their homes for more than a year and businesses were closed for months, and still people from within the floodplain are not back in their properties.
Prior to the devastating flood, there was a huge flood in Morpeth in 1963, which was before I was born—people might question that. In an attempt to protect the community from further devastation in the future, I am working closely with the Morpeth flood action group, officers of Northumberland county council and the Environment Agency to try to progress the proposals for the Morpeth flood alleviation scheme. The proposed scheme for Morpeth is designed to reduce the risk of flooding from the River Wansbeck and the main burns in the town. It involves the storage of water upstream of Morpeth on the Mitford estate, the building of new defences in the town where none currently exist, and the replacement and refurbishment of some existing defences.
It is imperative that the flood alleviation scheme should be delivered to protect communities and businesses in the town of Morpeth. Local people need the reassurance that their homes are safe from the ravages of the extreme weather conditions and they deserve the peace of mind that those assurances will bring. Shops and businesses need to be assured that they will not suffer a reoccurrence of the devastation of 6 September 2008 and that they can have a secure future in Morpeth where they can build their businesses for the benefit of their employees, local communities and the local economy.
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman presents his case eloquently. Many of the businesses he mentions are either owned by my constituents or employ them. A large area of my constituency will face the upstream flooding that is part of the alleviation scheme, but I think we all want to work together to ensure that Morpeth and Rothbury do not have to go through such an experience again.
Ian Lavery
I agree with that and understand the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, bearing in mind that his constituency is next to mine. I understand the associated problems, particularly upstream, as compared with those in the town centre of Morpeth.
In addition to the trauma and devastating personal and physical effects of the floods, local residents and visitors must now come to terms with problems obtaining buildings and contents insurance, which has been mentioned. It is a huge problem for people living on floodplains. The current agreement with insurance companies will continue until 2013, and who knows what will happen after that? It must be considered as a matter of extreme urgency. Many people living in Morpeth face huge rises in premiums and excesses. One gentleman living in the Morpeth floodplain was asked, after going to court, to pay £300 a month in insurance, and the excess was £20,000. That is not insurance. It is a massive problem. Individuals, families and businesses who have experienced the horror and trauma of flooding have had their lives turned upside down, and they should not have to face additional problems that cause them further distress and upset as well as imposing a huge financial burden on them. Those issues must be tackled as a matter of urgency.
I have not got much more to say, but I pay tribute to the men and women of the emergency services who, on all occasions up and down the country, have been absolutely fantastic when such things occur. They put their lives at risk to ensure that everyone else is safe.
To move on slightly from local issues, recommendation 39 of the Pitt review, which both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported before the election, stated:
“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty”.
The coalition agreement committed to
“take forward the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk.”
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives supported a statutory duty, and it is in the coalition agreement.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the flood wardens of south Derbyshire, who have taken duties on themselves as part of the big society? While waiting for other things to get better, we are looking after ourselves. We get out there on horses and take out flood signs. We know that those in the community are looking after themselves. We have professionals to look after us, but it is important for our villages and communities to do their best for themselves too.
Ian Lavery
Of course I pay tribute to those people. I am not sure whether flood defences and removing water from our towns, villages and city centres should be left to the whim of some big society, as I am not too sure what that actually means, but I certainly pay tribute to anybody who volunteers to secure their community against flooding problems. I am not sure whether people in my area would have access to horses. Maybe the hon. Lady can tell me after this debate exactly how it happened. It is interesting.
Now that the Minister is in office, does he still agree with recommendation 39 on a statutory duty involving the emergency services? If so, as it is in the coalition agreement, might that take place in the not-too-distant future?
The decision today not to make funding for the Morpeth flood alleviation scheme readily available in the next 12 months is disappointing to me, the people concerned who are heavily involved in the community, the local council and many others. As the Member of Parliament for Wansbeck, I will be working tirelessly with those organisations and interested parties to ensure that the scheme is progressed in its entirety. It is important not to consider flood alleviation schemes on a piecemeal basis, because that is not effective economically or in terms of flood prevention. I ask the Minister for the third time this week—I hope that he will bear with me; I have had two assurances from him already, and I am sure he does not mind giving me a third one—to assure me that everything will be done to ensure that the Morpeth flood alleviation scheme will be completed in the near future without delay, as quickly as possible and in its entirety.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
It is my intention to call the Front-Bench spokesmen no later than 3.40. There are two Members wishing to speak, so they should be brief.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Sheridan. I will speak for two minutes only, in the hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) will also be able to speak. I do not want political differences about who did what. Other than a fire, nothing worse can happen to a home than to be flooded with a mixture of water and sewage, as I saw when walking around the streets of Fairford after the 2007 floods.
I will make one or two brief remarks. In the 2007 floods, 250 buildings in the Cotswolds were flooded, including a school on which £1 million had to be spent, doctors’ surgeries and so on. I am a little concerned about a letter that I received from the Environment Agency. I pay tribute to its author, Barry Russell. In my 18 years as a Member of Parliament, I do not think that I have found such a helpful civil servant anywhere else in the country. He has been to public meeting after public meeting with me to explain what the Environment Agency can and cannot do. I do not blame him at all for what I am about to quote from his letter, but I would like the Minister’s observation on it.
Barry Russell says:
“In previous years, the local authority projects received funding from a ring-fenced pot of money. This is not the case for next year (2011-12), and all projects are competing on a like for like basis—both local authority projects as well as our own. Ultimately the allocations were based on the OM score, and funding was allocated to projects with a higher score than those submitted by the Cotswold District Council. I share your disappointment in not receiving the funding that you were anticipating for this scheme.”
It is easy to come up with statistics to show, in order of priority, which projects will give the best value for money and save the most houses. The problem in a highly rural constituency such as the Cotswolds, which has 110 villages, lots of which have flooding problems, is that it will never meet those criteria. Most of my constituency—with the exception of Cirencester, which flooded in 2000, 2007 and 2008—will never get any funding under the system. I accept that my hon. Friend the Minister has a limited pot of funding, but I ask him to look at the system of allocation.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
I will be brief, as I know that I have only a couple of minutes.
The emphasis in this debate has been, rightly, on flood defence. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Environment Agency budget has sufficient funds to deal with two other issues. One is maintenance. One contributory factor to the floods in west Cumbria in November 2009 was the lack of dredging and maintenance of becks, streams and rivers. We must ensure that there is sufficient funding for that.
The other issue is flood resilience measures. It is all right having flood defences and doing maintenance, but individual houses and businesses need protection, and we must ensure that funds for flood resilience measures are sufficient.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) for securing this debate. He has demonstrated yet again his considerable knowledge of the issues, and I think that Members of all parties are grateful to him for securing this debate so that we can air them. I commend the Environment Agency workers who have been working around the clock, as they always do, in the north-west of England over the past few weeks, where rainfall has been high, heightening flood risks considerably.
Communities at risk of flooding require certainty from Government, and that is what I think has been at the core of everyone’s argument today. As I have said, we seek to work with the Government where we can and when we agree that they are doing the right thing. Issues such as flooding and flood defences should be above the typical, tribal knockabout of this House and of British politics in general, but we will hold the Government to account when we believe that they are not doing the right thing or acting in the public interest, and when we believe that their actions are likely to hurt those most in need.
We are all agreed that flooding is a life-changing issue. It is also a complex one and its policy solutions, or the solutions that we as politicians can provide towards the problem, are not simple. Sadly, flood defence in this country, as well as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the bodies that rely upon it, and the people whom those organisations serve, are now beginning to pay the price for what many people and independent commentators believe is the Secretary of State’s fevered desire to be the first Secretary of State in the new Government to give the Chancellor what he wants—big, indiscriminate cuts, with little regard for how they could be accommodated, or for the effect that they will have on the Department’s core areas of work. We cannot escape that fact.
In many ways, the debacle over forestry privatisation has illustrated what we already knew about the Government—they are riven with contradictions and lack a clear focus on issues of real concern to people in too many areas throughout the country. There is no argument about the fact that there will be a 27% cut in flood defence spending this year—it has been confirmed by the Environment Agency. I have the greatest respect for the Minister—we have a good working relationship on the whole—but he has himself confirmed to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that cuts are taking place. The Prime Minister, however, is apparently unaware of that, or simply disinterested in the detail of the policies that his Government are prosecuting.
The Prime Minister has told the House that it is “simply not the case” that there will be a reduction in spending on flood defences, and that the comprehensive spending review settlement is “roughly the same” as in previous years but, in fact, it is not. Cutting is not the way to deliver the savings that the country needs; it is, in fact, a false economy. I trust that the Minister will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record.
As I have said, communities that are at risk of flooding—we are talking about 5.2 million homes, as well as business properties—require certainty from Government, not a changing of the goal posts or an abandonment or reneging on agreements. The communities of York, Thirsk, Morpeth and elsewhere feel that sense of abandonment right now as their flood defence schemes fall by the wayside. It is a fact that the Government have announced a 27% cut in capital investment for flood defence spending for 2011-12, which means that many communities will face genuine uncertainty about their futures as projects are delayed or shelved. The cuts will leave many homes and businesses at a heightened risk of flooding.
The Minister said in the main Chamber today that those are deferrals, not cancellations, but they will feel like cancellations. The statement of principles is likely to expire before any investments are made, so those areas that are today missing out on flood defence investments face the prospect of being thrown at the mercy of a bear market when trying to find future insurance. Will the Minister confirm that he will not allow the insurance premiums or excess payments of anyone in any area to go through the roof as a result of his Government’s cancellations or delays? Does he agree that those areas that had expected investments, and that were told that investments would be forthcoming before the expiry of the statement of principles in 2013 have now been prejudiced? If that is not the case, how is it not the case? How much public money has been spent designing, characterising and consulting upon the schemes that will not now go ahead?
We know that York is the tip of the iceberg, that many more cancellations are in the pipeline, and that the Government’s spending cuts will determine which schemes go ahead and which do not. Today is the day that the Government can finally choose to be honest with those home owners, communities and business owners who live in areas at risk of flooding, and tell all of us which schemes will be cancelled and which will go ahead, and not just for the next financial year—there is no security in that at all. I urge the Minister and all his colleagues in DEFRA not to hide behind the Environment Agency—today’s announcement was by DEFRA, not the Environment Agency.
Even after today’s announcement, there are many unanswered questions, an awful lot of drift and there remains a significant lack of transparency. One of the principal concerns is the expiry of the statement of principles in 2013. The statement is the agreement between Government and the insurance industry that currently underpins household insurance provision. So far, we have heard nothing that will reassure home owners or business property owners that the Government are working in an effective way with the insurance industry to resolve the real threat of some homes and businesses becoming uninsurable and unmortgageable following the expiry of the statement of principles.
Some insurance experts have warned that when the statement of principles comes to an end, it will be devastating for consumers. Others have warned that it will be bad for consumers but a great opportunity for brokers. Does the Minister agree with that? Simon Douglas of the AA’s insurance division told the Secretary of State in a letter:
“Millions of people are at risk of inundation from overflowing rivers, coasts and estuaries during extremes of weather and that risk is increasing all the time. If spending isn’t maintained, it will compromise the statement of principles, which could see many homes become uninsurable.”
David Williams of AXA went even further by saying:
“We are committed to the Statement of Principles, subject to spending. Now that spending has been reduced, you could say all bets are off. The Government is in breach of its side of the bargain, so if insurers wanted to stop providing cover, they would probably be able to. The problem is nobody wants to be the first and end up getting harangued in the press.”
I think that all Members on both sides of the House would agree that the expiration of the statement of principles is a ticking time bomb, not just for individuals, home owners or business people, but for whole communities. It is hugely economically and socially significant.
What assessment have the Government undertaken on the impact of their budget cuts on the universal coverage of insurance provision for homes at risk of flooding? Will the Minister publish that assessment? The ongoing negotiations between the insurance industry and Government are of profound importance, so will he tell us, categorically, whether he is committed to the principle of universal insurance cover? If so, will he be transparent about his negotiations with the insurance industry and publish an update on them in the House of Commons Library? Finally on this issue, does he agree that the expiry of the statement of principles, without any meaningful system to replace it, will be a disaster for consumers, and will he seek a system of universal insurance cover for whatever follows the current one beyond 2013?
There are other critical questions for the Minister to answer. In 2010-11, the previous Labour Government allocated £35 million for Pitt and for adaptation budgets. That was outlined in the CSR for 2007-08 to 2010-11. Recently, the Minister announced that £21 million will be provided in 2011-12 to lead local flood authorities. Will he confirm that that is different money from that announced by the previous Government? Is it new money?
The Minister will be aware that local authorities were awarded £100 million for flood funding in 2010-11 through the Communities and Local Government formula grant. What contact has he had with his counterpart in CLG about the level of funding available to local authorities next year for flooding and related investment? The concern throughout the House is that local authorities have been given new responsibilities but no new money, and that local flood defence schemes in many areas face a double cut.
Local authorities are, of course, key to our national efforts to improve flood resilience. The 2009 DEFRA annual report states:
“Over the next 2 years we aim to offer an improved standard of protection against flooding or coastal erosion risk for 145,000 more homes”.
According to a written answer form the Minister on 27 July 2010, we are actually due to exceed that figure and reach “at least 160,000 households”, which is a glowing endorsement of the investment that we made, and I welcome his recognition of it. The Secretary of State said of the next CSR period:
“We intend that, by March 2015, 145,000 households will be better protected”—[Official Report, 19 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 57WS.]
Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government plan to do less over four years than we achieved in just two—yes or no?
The Minister said in today’s announcement that 112,000 homes would be protected. Will he confirm that that 112,000 is part of the 145,000 target previously mentioned? If so, what will become of the schemes for the remaining 33,000? The Minister also mentioned the role of specialist providers in relation to the provision of insurance cover. I think that many would say that that hinted towards an end to universal coverage, but I hope that he will refute that. What does he expect specialist providers to do, and how will they keep their excess and insurance premium costs comparable with today’s rates?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the cancellation of the Morpeth scheme, which has been halted because budget cuts have changed the outcome measures via which the EA has to assess projects. Will the Minister admit that that is the reason for the scheme’s delay and give the people of that town the clarity they deserve?
This is an essential point. The Minister talked briefly about value for money. Of course, anyone in his position is tasked with spending public money properly and I support him in doing that, but what is his definition of value for money in relation to public spending to protect homes? Will he acknowledge that there is a real fear that his Department’s budget cuts and his changing definitions of value for money mean that particularly sparsely populated areas at heightened flood risk, such as the one I represent and those that many hon. Members here represent, are on their own and that the Government have abandoned them? Will he give a guarantee that his budgets cuts will not prejudice flood defence schemes in the more rural, disparate towns and villages that are outside the larger urban conurbations? Such a move would be a scandal and I condemn it.
Finally, will the Minister lay a copy of the full Environment Agency funding allocation in the Library, so that hon. Members from all parties can examine the detail and inform their constituents about the current state of affairs? I am proud of my Government’s record in office in relation to flood defence spending: £2.36 billion over the past four years, 160,000 homes protected and the introduction of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for introducing the debate. We need to debate these issues urgently in Government time on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that assurance today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is excellent in so many ways, has a habit of asking me a plethora of questions and not leaving me enough time to even begin to answer them, but I will see what I can do.
As announced in the Chamber earlier today, the Government have announced £521 million to be invested in flood and coastal defences over the next year. Some 112,000 homes in England will benefit once the work has been completed. That money will help to fund 109 schemes that are already under construction, and work will begin on 39 new flood and coastal defence projects. Of those projects, 18 will provide vital repairs and safety enhancements to existing defences, and the remaining 21 will provide additional protection to 13,000 households at risk of flooding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that some of that investment is taking place in his constituency.
I pay great tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) for securing the debate and for his undoubted passion in standing up for his constituents on this important issue. One question he asked me is why his region is apparently missing out so much on the allocation of schemes this year. Yorkshire has received a smaller settlement in 2011-12 than in previous years—before he includes that quote in a press release, I ask him to listen on—but that is because a large number of flood defence projects have recently been completed in the region. Hundreds of households in Yorkshire are already enjoying better protection against floods and coastal erosion as a result of projects that have been completed—I concede—over a number of years.
That is an important point because we have to take a long-term view of the spending on flood defences. Very few schemes—almost none at all—go from conception to commissioning in one year. Some of them, particularly the one we have been talking about in Leeds, are very large schemes and run over a number of years. For example, a £2 million scheme in north Doncaster was completed in 2009, which reduces flood risk to 3,000 properties. A £10 million refurbishment of the Hull tidal surge barrier was completed in 2010, and reduces flood risk to 17,000 properties. There are many more schemes.
May I address the specific points that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised in this important debate? He asked what I would do to get the Leeman road scheme back on track. I assure him that the Environment Agency and I will work with him at every stage to make sure that we can get some movement on that scheme, but I cannot guarantee where it will sit in any future year because of the variety of other schemes that will come forward. I can assure him that, if our payment for outcomes scheme becomes the modus operandi of taking forward such initiatives in future years, there will be much more clarity for constituents about where they stand on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman raised a rather more macro issue about the current economic climate, and how this issue sits within it. He is right: the deficit issue is a current account matter. Our national debt is about everything; it is not just current or capital account. There are siren voices that say that we must invest more in infrastructure. We are investing in a variety of infrastructure—not just flooding schemes, but a variety of different ones. It is a question of having a balanced approach.
The hon. Gentleman talked about whether we can assist his flood defence committee in Yorkshire in obtaining European money. I assure him that he will have the full co-operation of my Department, the Environment Agency and other colleagues across Government in trying to secure any sort of funding that we can lever out of any organisation. I very much include the European Union in that. He rightly talked about the need for slow-water schemes and to think up-stream. I have been discussing the value of that with the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). We recognise that the beneficiaries in one community sometimes pay for flood defences in another area, which may well affect the viability of farming businesses and the like. We have to take a large regional approach to the matter, which is why our new payment for outcomes scheme takes a much broader view. The scheme recognises where beneficiaries are and what can be done to alleviate the problems in affected communities.
I was also asked how we are protecting businesses. The economic benefits from protecting businesses from flooding are taken into account in the prioritisation schemes included in the payment for outcomes system. That has been the situation in the past and it will continue to be so. We are working with the City of York council and the Environment Agency to consider opportunities for external funding. It is crucial that there is greater local involvement at the heart of reforming the funding for flooding and coastal erosion risk management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made an excellent speech and raised some important issues. I was so impressed by the level of innovation from her area. From my visit to her constituency, I remember sitting in the minibus with representatives from the Environment Agency, Natural England, the local authority, local landowners and the local community. We drove along and ensured that none of them could get out, so that we could hack out some of the problems facing landowners who just want to make a small improvement and come up against two different agencies plus the local authority. The complications of the process are, I hope, being ironed out. That was an extremely useful session. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to take a longer-term view, and internal drainage boards are absolutely crucial to many of these schemes.
There was an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—
Richard Benyon
For Stroud actually. He was talking about the scheme concerning small changes that can be made. We must have that level of flexibility.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) spoke with passion about the Leeds scheme and the cost of flooding to his community. I absolutely understand that and the commercial driver that his community—that great city—is to that region. If we follow that logical argument and consider the 5.2 million homes that are at risk from flooding, for every single one of those homes that can get protection from flooding, there will be a financial return. We have to make sure that the financial return is as high as possible. That is why work can be done on that scheme in particular. As the equally sensible contribution from his colleague the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) made clear, we might risk having a Rolls-Royce when a reasonably priced family car might have served some of the purpose. I cannot go into more detail about the matter now, but I will continue to look at it very closely to ensure that we get a result.
I shall quickly mention the point about the woodlands that were being built over. I cannot remember who raised the matter, but we need to understand the impact of the issue. That is why I have been totally opposed to so much of the infill development that we have seen, with building in back gardens and green spaces. The Government have a very clear policy on that which we want to take forward.
I would love to address many of the other valid points raised by, not least, the hon. Members for Copeland, for Wansbeck and others, but I see that the clock is against me. I do not want to repeat the increasingly sterile debate about where we are and whether we are comparing apples with apples or apples with pears. In the case of the hon. Member for Copeland, I suggest it is the latter.
Citizens Advice Bureaux (Birmingham)
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Sheridan, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
This is a debate of immense importance for the people of Birmingham. The Birmingham citizens advice bureau is the oldest and largest in the country, dating back to 1939. Progressively, the Birmingham CAB opened five offices in Birmingham to meet great and growing demand. Last year, the Birmingham CAB provided advice and support to 56,000 people. For those who find it hard to access mainstream services, it also provides a comprehensive web of outreach services in, for example, GP practices, children’s centres, hospitals, dementia advice projects and Macmillan Cancer Support.
The Birmingham CAB employs 100 full-time staff, who work with a dedicated army of 166 volunteers, including the excellent Paul Ballantyne who is here today and who is the chair of the trustees, and the excellent John Orchard, a volunteer for the CAB. Both have both devoted many years’ work to the CAB in support of the most vulnerable people in Birmingham. And vulnerable they certainly are; in Kingstanding, in my constituency, we have a CAB in one of the poorest and most deprived wards in Britain—much cherished by the people who live in the ward.
Birmingham has been hard hit. The west midlands has the highest unemployment anywhere in Britain. Just when the people of Birmingham need somewhere to go for support and advice, the generalist advice services of all five citizens advice bureaux will close. Why? On the one hand, it is a combination of the callous cuts being made by the Government to local government services in Birmingham, where £170 million will come out of the budget next year alone; and on the other hand, the cruel incompetence of the council.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I do not know if my hon. Friend saw the Prime Minister’s very helpful comment in The Sunday Telegraph, when he said that councils should look to reduce their chief executives’ salaries before they cut citizens advice bureaux. Given that the chief executive of Birmingham is one of the highest-paid in the country, should he and some of his senior officers not take a cut before the CAB?
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The last thing that should be cut is advice to the people of Britain from citizens advice bureaux. If there are to be reductions, they should start at the top in Birmingham city council.
The CAB had been planning for some council cuts for some time, going back to March 2010, but suddenly, out of the blue, the bureaux were told in December just before Christmas that they would lose all their funding from March 2011. The CAB then made repeated approaches to the council to try to find a way forward. What have they been told? “Sorry, you will have to close by March, but you can reapply for a fresh funding stream in August this year.” That means that the CAB’s generalist advice services will close down for five months, with no certainty whatever that there will be support afterwards.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the city council is in fact offering interim funding to maintain the service, and that the CAB had not actually made proposals for any savings whatever?
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
This is an intervention on my hon. Friend, but before I start it I think the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is no.
Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that in the other place, Baroness Wilcox said:
“Central Government has not been notified of the closure of any citizens advice bureaux since the spending review settlement 2010. The Government are aware that local authorities that fund citizens advice bureaux are facing tough decisions but do not expect them when making those decisions to pass on disproportionate cuts to other service providers, especially in the voluntary sector.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2011; Vol. 724, c. WA166.]
Would my hon. Friend join me in inviting the Minister, when he responds, to tell us what it means, other than just words, if the Government let happen what looks like happening in Birmingham?
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is proof positive, once again, that the Government are simply out of contact with the consequences of their actions. What is happening in Birmingham is clear beyond any doubt. The question that we will be asking today is what Ministers intend to do about it.
On the point about the council, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley asked whether the CAB had explored alternatives. It has explored alternatives repeatedly. I have seen the correspondence going backwards and forwards. The CAB has tried to find a way forward, but what has it been met with? Among other things, abuse from the cabinet member concerned, Councillor Ayoub Khan. Just when the CAB was looking for a co-operative approach to try to find a way forward, including making economies consistent with protecting the service to the community, it ran up against a brick wall.
John Hemming
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman claimed that there was no proposal for any funding from April onwards. In fact, there is a proposal to make interim funding available. That, to be fair, is something that I have discussed with the CAB.
Jack Dromey
There will be a crucial meeting on Monday next week. As things stand, the CAB will have no alternative but to close down its generalist advice services—no alternative. If, as a consequence of today, the Government say, standing by previous statements, that they mean what they say and that CAB should not close, and if the council sees sense, not only will the CAB celebrate, so too will the people of Birmingham.
If there is no change, let us bring home what the consequences will be for the people of Birmingham. All Members who represent Birmingham can give examples—the kinds of problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) sees as well—but I shall give the House three. First, a quote:
“I didn’t know what sort of help to get regarding family difficulty with breach of custody agreement. I was terrified that I may lose my son to a hostel and wouldn’t know who to go to about my rights as a father if it wasn’t for the CAB.”
That difficult family problem was successfully resolved.
Secondly, a client of the CAB, disabled and living alone in an empty flat on a low income with no furniture, had no idea about the support available—social tariffs for utilities, community care grant or budgeting loans for furniture. Thanks to the CAB, that disabled woman now lives in comfort and is properly supported. Thirdly, there is the case of a client with cancer, who without the help of the CAB would not have been able to challenge successfully a decision not to award her benefits.
The consequences for people like them, and for the people of Birmingham more generally, will be severe indeed. Where will they turn at their time of need, and just at a time when demand is increasing?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The issue for a great many of us as elected representatives and as MPs is that we recognise the good work that CAB do, but we also recognise that with the changes the coalition Government are putting forward on benefits, demand for CAB services will increase and concerns will increase. Homelessness, loss of benefits and loss of income will be critical issues over the next four to five years.
Jack Dromey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point indeed. I suspect that all Members of Parliament, let alone advice agencies, are seeing the same trend of growing demand for support from us: advice on housing, advice on homelessness, advice on benefits and advice on debt. A whole range of issues is coming to us because there is growing demand when the economy is in difficulties and at the same time the Government are cutting back vital services to the people of Britain and Northern Ireland.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that CAB and other advice agencies are facing a double whammy because of the cuts? The closure of the financial inclusion fund will leave 100,000 people who were served last year with nowhere to turn in the future, and more than 500 skilled and trained advice workers are currently serving their notice.
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She brings to this debate the wisdom and experience of her many years in the CAB. Her contribution is welcome, and she is right to bring home once again the consequences of what the Government are doing.
On the folly of the cuts, interesting independent academic research has demonstrated that every £1 invested in advice yields a return of up to £10 because early intervention produces the best results. What will happen—it is as simple as this—is that the CAB and other advice services will be run down and closed, and there will be greater risk of debt, homelessness, poverty, mental health problems and relationship breakdown simply because tried and tested services upon which people depend at a time of need have gone.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend, as a fellow Birmingham MP, share my experience? The two agencies that I rely on most heavily when constituents come to my advice surgeries are the CAB and the Immigration Advisory Service. The CAB is a source of reliable, independent advice, and there is no alternative. If we lose it, our people will lose.
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend speaks from her great experience in Birmingham, Edgbaston. She is absolutely right: these services, including the one for immigration, are vital. The question then arises—Ministers will have to answer it—of where people will go if the fabric of our advice services is torn apart. As I shall say in a moment, it is not just the CAB; a total of 13 services will close in Birmingham.
John Hemming
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the CAB is a vital service, but does he agree that it should not take an all-or-nothing approach but be willing to compromise with the city council and aim to maintain a service at a lower cost?
Jack Dromey
The hon. Gentleman is, to be frank, wrong. The CAB has made it consistently clear that it is prepared to do precisely that, but dialogue with Birmingham city council has proved to be a dialogue with the deaf. If he will speak out today and call on Birmingham city council, and join the Labour MPs of Birmingham in hoping that good sense will break out next Monday, that would be very welcome indeed.
John Hemming
I have been working with the city council on funding proposals to maintain a substantial part of the CAB service, so that has been happening.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Mahmood
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) is not dealing with the real issue. I have two CAB in my area—one in my constituency and one just outside—which serve some of the most deprived people in the area. Those people have real issues in respect of health, housing and mental health. An organisation called COPE: Black Mental Health Foundation, which provides advice on mental health issues, will close in the next two months because the city council is not providing any support. The Asian Resource Centre is also closing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) says, there will be huge issues around support for the most vulnerable in our society, but there has been no dialogue at all with the city council on that.
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend is, of course, right; it is not just the CAB. Some of the 13 organisations that are threatened are the Afro-Caribbean Millennium Centre, Age Concern in Birmingham and Perry Barr, the Birmingham Asian Resource Centre, the TUC Centre for the Unemployed and the Chinese Community Centre. A whole range of advice services catering for the needs of the various communities of Birmingham are all facing closure. In total, between 80,000 and 100,000 people seek advice from those 13 advice services each year. That is one in 10 of Birmingham’s citizens, or one in four families. Such is the scale of need that those admirable institutions meet at present.
It would appear that the cuts are not just cruel and callous; they may be unlawful as well. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, an admirable organisation, has written to Birmingham city council to raise concerns over the legality of the cuts in relation to consultation and equality impact assessments. Many of us will give evidence in any proceedings that are held because we know from our experience that there was no proper consultation in advance, and that no serious impact assessments were conducted. The council made the decisions just before Christmas, and it has gone hell for leather to implement the next stages without proper consultation or impact assessments.
It is essential that the Government and the council act. If a solution is to be found that will secure the long-term future of these admirable organisations, there will need to be at least interim funding while we seek a long-term solution.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The situation is the same across the country. In my constituency, the CAB in Goole is facing a similar threat. I want to reinforce the point that he has just made. There has to be a long-term solution, because this is not something that has not happened before. CABs are constantly battling for various funding streams, but what we really need is something that puts their vital service on a proper, long-term footing. I entirely agree with what he has been saying.
Jack Dromey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes a powerful point based on his experience. The current arrangements mean that this admirable institution, the CAB, lives from hand to mouth, never quite certain that it can count on the next funding round or stream, which makes it difficult to plan. John and Paul, who are here today, are outstanding at doing precisely that, but it is impossible for them to plan if they are told in December that they will have to close in March but they might or might not get money in August. That is, to be blunt, an absolute farce and something that requires urgent action by the Government to put right.
Let me close on exactly those points. Clear views have been expressed on both sides of the Chamber that we need action by Ministers. I say this with the greatest of respect to the Minister: Ministers cannot wash their hands of responsibility. If the big society means anything—they proclaim that the CAB and advice agencies are a key part—what do the Government intend to do about the situation? Will they call on Birmingham city council to think again? That is precisely what we hope for—that Birmingham city council will think again—when the meeting takes place on Monday next week.
I pay tribute to Citizens Advice. It is an outstanding institution with outstanding employees and volunteers. It needs to be able to serve the people of Birmingham well for the next 70 years, as it has for the past 70.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this debate on what I agree is an important subject. I would like to thank the Members who intervened in the debate.
The hon. Gentleman used the adjective “admirable” on many occasions in describing the CABs in Birmingham, and I am sure that he meant CABs everywhere. I concur with him totally in that regard.
Mr Davey
In a second—I just want to finish this point.
Like other hon. Members, I have advice surgeries in my constituency every week. In fact, I have two every week, and have done so every week since 1997: every Monday morning at 8 am in my office, and on Thursday or Friday night, or Saturday morning. I spend between five and six hours—sometimes even nine hours—face to face with constituents every week, so I see many of the kind of cases that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington spoke about, whether about benefits, debt, housing or antisocial behaviour.
My staff and I work with the CAB in Kingston. We work with organisations such as Kingston Churches Action on Homelessness and several others to help the most vulnerable in our society, and we do that willingly, as does every Member in this Chamber. We understand the importance of the CAB. I understand the importance that it has in our society, whether it is called the big society or something else. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to get behind me in the queue to praise the work of the volunteers and professional staff of CABs in every community in our country and the work of the national organisation. I hope that when he hears my remarks, he will understand that the Government do support CABs.
John Hemming
It helps to put the history on record. Yes, the decision was taken in November that money needed to be saved in this area, but the objective was to maintain services, and, therefore, interim funding was made available. The CAB took the view that it was all or nothing; it wanted to continue interim funding at the same rate at which the funding was being withdrawn. To be fair, since then I have met with the chief executive of Citizens Advice, and although the meeting started with the position that it needed to maintain interim funding at the same rate, it has now agreed to look for savings, but that is far too late. I have a meeting with Councillor Ayoub Khan about the matter on Friday, and let us hope that the CAB, rather than issuing threats of legal action, is willing to co-operate to maintain services. I ask the CAB to co-operate to maintain—
John Hemming
I ask that the Minister co-operates because there are other funding streams, which are also crucial.
Mr Davey
Let me answer the intervention first, and then I will take subsequent interventions.
The information that my hon. Friend provided then and in other interventions backs up the information I received—in no way has there been a final deal. People locally, both on the council and in Birmingham CAB, are talking to each other. Local MPs such as my hon. Friend are trying to help to resolve the issue, and are working hard on behalf of local people in Birmingham. That is exactly how it should be.
Richard Burden
May I gently put it to the Minister that those of us who have experience working with Birmingham city council know that all too often it is like trying to knit fog? Unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), rather than get my knitting needles out, I would rather get rid of the fog. If the Minister has looked into the issue, will he answer the following question? Has he taken a view on whether Birmingham city council’s actions so far in dealing with this are compact-compliant?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that it would be wrong for a Minister to second-guess every action of every council in the country. I hope that he will agree with that. If he agrees with localism, I hope that he will agree that local authorities, and the councillors who are elected to serve, should take responsibility and be accountable to their local electors. It is important that local councillors of all parties play their role in sorting out local problems in their areas.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given that six out of the 10 Birmingham MPs are here, and they have considerable experience of working with the council, will he say whether in his view Birmingham is compact-compliant? It is a very important point.
Mr Davey
I am afraid that I am not going to give the hon. Lady an answer to that question. It is important that, as this is being settled and as the meetings we have heard about—the one that has happened, the meeting on Friday, and the meeting on Monday—try to resolve the matter, they will ensure that any regulatory demands from central Government are met.
John Hemming
Does the Minister agree that the best way forward is for the CAB and the council to op-operate on how to maintain services, rather than issue threats of legal action?
Mr Davey
This is a wider point that applies beyond Birmingham. I certainly agree that it is important that local authorities and citizens advice bureaux in these difficult times try to work together. I will talk about that in a moment, if I can make some progress.
I can give a view from the heart. A few years ago in my constituency, my local council signed up to a three-year strategic partnership with Kingston CAB to ensure that it had stability of funding. That is one issue discussed in the debate. I understand that local authorities are under serious pressure at the moment, as are Government, Whitehall Departments and all those across the public sector. We have some difficult funding times, which is hardly a secret, and such long-term deals need to be seen in that context. From my local experience, I can recommend that strategic partnerships with key voluntary players, such as the CAB and the local council, can resolve such problems more easily.
Steve McCabe
I simply wanted to ask the Minister whether he is responding as part of a double act with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). Will he ask the hon. Gentleman why there was no mention of transitional funds in the council report in November? That seems to have emerged when the hon. Gentleman made his contribution today.
Mr Davey
When I eventually get to that point in my speech, I will say that prior to today I was aware that there was transitional funding. I do not think that it has emerged in the past few minutes. [Interruption.] Labour Members need to hear this, because there is a backdrop to the debate, which is the record deficit that the Administration inherited.
We have had to take very difficult decisions. One of the most difficult decisions I have had to take as Minister meant telling the chief executive of Citizens Advice that his budget—this was before Gillian Guy took over—had to be cut in-year by a significant percentage. I did not like having to deliver that decision, but I knew that we had to take tough decisions because we have such a difficult spending climate. It is exceedingly important that those tough decisions are taken fairly and are implemented. Local authorities will have to face up to that issue—Birmingham city council, Kingston council and other councils as well. I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I hope that he realises that I need to make progress after his intervention.
John Hemming
I presume that the Minister agrees that CAB funding in Birmingham was perfectly stable until the Labour Government almost bankrupted the country.
Mr Davey
It is very tempting to answer that question, but I shall make some progress.
As a result of the financial difficulties, all councils must re-examine how services are organised and run—finding efficiencies and unlocking savings. We have sought to make that task easier by scrapping most ring-fencing constraints on councils’ funding, so they have greater freedom to manage resources in the best possible way. That involves joining up back-office functions, sharing chief executives and other senior managers, and cutting out the duplication and waste associated with procurement. Where possible, that should not mean cuts to front-line services. We say that not only to Birmingham city council, but to all local authorities.
It is worth noting that, although all citizens advice bureaux are members of the national umbrella organisation, Citizens Advice, they operate independently. I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington will admit that at least. Their funding is determined locally. That is not new, but has been the case for many years under the previous Administration and the Administration before that. Funding is determined by the relevant local authority. That is how it should be, because the need for advice and such services varies dramatically across the country. I am sure that the needs of Birmingham are different from the needs of Kingston. There should not be any doubt about the fact that these should be local services.
Yvonne Fovargue
Does the Minister agree that funding from the local authority often acts as seed-corn funding for the other funding that citizens advice bureaux get? For every £1 that the local authority puts in, £10, on average, from other sources is gained by bureaux.
Jack Dromey
We are getting close to the end of the debate, and it is of the highest importance that a clear message be sent to the people of Birmingham. A meeting is scheduled for next Monday and we hope progress will be made. In the event of progress not being made next Monday, will the Minister be prepared to meet a delegation from the Birmingham CAB—the admirable people who work for it, the admirable people who volunteer and some of the people who depend upon it?
Mr Davey
I would not want to prejudge the meetings that will happen over the next few days. It is up to individual councils such as Birmingham to work with partner organisations to sort out some of the difficulties. I understand that Birmingham city council has reviewed advice provision within the whole city and will be moving towards a new commissioning process in the summer. All the independent advice providers will be eligible to apply, and that will, of course, include the bureaux.
I also understand that the council recognises that there may be short-term problems for some of the independent advice providers during the period until new contracts are awarded. I believe that it has a transition fund, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred, which might be used to help those organisations through that period. The meeting, scheduled for Monday, will focus on discussing that.
Those are positive developments, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington did not touch on in his speech, and it is worth putting them on record because I hope they will result in a successful outcome. I am concerned that hasty decisions taken by councils now could lead to the unnecessary loss of important CAB services not only in Birmingham, but in other areas. I trust that, when local authorities work carefully with their citizens advice bureaux to strike up the strategic partnerships I talked about, that will not happen.
Hospital Services (Shropshire)
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
This important debate is on the reconfiguration of hospital services in Shropshire, and in almost six years as Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury, I have never received so many letters, e-mails and telephone calls from concerned constituents over a single issue. Many of those calls have been emotional, and even though the consultation process is still ongoing, I feel it is my duty to use the platform that I have in the House of Commons to highlight a few of the concerns to the Minister.
Part of the reconfiguration proposals would involve maternity and paediatric services moving from Shrewsbury to Telford. I want the Minister to imagine the geography of Shropshire and mid-Wales. The Royal Shrewsbury hospital covers not just the whole of Shropshire, but the whole of mid-Wales—a vast expanse just across the border. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) is present in the debate today.
Picture the wheel of a bicycle, and at the centre, the spokes coming into the middle. That is where Shrewsbury is in the area. Now imagine moving paediatric and maternity services right to the edge of the wheel. How would that wheel function? Telford is at the edge of the area, on the extreme eastern border close to Staffordshire. What is the sense in moving services so far away from the rest of central Shropshire and mid-Wales?
I am so passionate about this issue that I raised it during Prime Minister’s Question Time last week. The Prime Minister referred to the importance of public engagement and consultation, which he said was a fundamental aspect of any reconfiguration proposals. Therefore, I have asked the chief executive and the primary care trust for a public meeting to be held in Shrewsbury on 11 February at the football stadium in our town. I believe that hundreds and hundreds of people will attend. I intend to make a transcript of that meeting and of all questions put to the PCT and the chief executive, and I will be sending that transcript to the Minister.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that I also have a huge interest in this issue as I represent Montgomeryshire over the border. Does he agree that the meetings that will be held in Montgomeryshire on 18, 23 and 24 February are of equal importance, and that it is crucial for the health board and PCTs to take notice of them? We also depend on the services in Shropshire.
Daniel Kawczynski
I agree with my hon. Friend. We are cognisant of the fact that his constituents, the citizens of mid-Wales, do not have facilities across the border and are dependent on the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. The people of Wales must be listened to equally, in the same way as the people of Shropshire.
I have slight concerns about the lack of sufficient engagement by the authorities with local people. I pay tribute to the chief executive and his colleagues. There have been public meetings, and the chief executive has met some of my constituents who have serious questions to ask on a one-to-one basis. Nevertheless, many letters and e-mails have not been answered in a timely way or to the degree that people wished for. Some people who have written in are retired senior consultants and experts in the field. I hope that all their questions will be answered.
I am also concerned about the dates of the public consultation. In began on 9 December and will finish on 14 March. I find 9 December a rather strange time to start a public consultation. We all know how stressful Christmas is at the best of times, and we would have been gearing up to buy the Christmas tree and presents and get our homes ready for festivities. A lot of people in Shropshire will not have been thinking about the consultation as intently and with as much time and focus as they might have done, because they were distracted by the coming festivities. If we are to have a public consultation, it must be held at the right time of the year and there must be sufficient time for people to make their views heard.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I use that phrase pointedly—for giving way. There will be a consultation in Telford next week, and I hope that people will come to it. It is important that people across Shropshire express their opinions. Does my hon. Friend accept that under the proposals, both hospitals have to give something in order to sustain health services in Shropshire? Acute surgery would move to Shrewsbury, and some elements of paediatric and maternity services would move to Telford. There will be a balance between the two hospitals. We do not want to see services move out of the county, and if we are to sustain services in Shropshire, I think this is the best plan we are going to get.
Daniel Kawczynski
I will reciprocate by referring to the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend. We are from different parties but we are colleagues. We get on well, and across the parties we have a passion for Shropshire. I will come later to the importance of retaining services in Shropshire. However, constituents do not pay attention to services that come to their area; they are focused on those that are leaving. That is why they are pressing me to highlight these issues in Parliament.
My other concern is that there is no plan B. This is a consultation process in which the chief executive and the board come forward with proposals. However, there are no shades of grey—it is take it or leave it. I speak purely as a layman, but if there is only one option, it is difficult for a large group of people, many of whom do not have medical experience, to scrutinise that proposal. Surely, if we are to genuinely engage with local people, differences and alternative options could be put forward so that the community as a whole could come together, debate them and make recommendations.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that in an ideal world, both hospital sites would have all-singing, all-dancing acute and clinical services? However, we do not live in an ideal world, but in a time of constrained public finances. Does he accept that the current consultation recognises the importance of having an accident and emergency ward at both Shrewsbury and Telford? That is a breakthrough from the original consultation process and shows that the hospital trust has listened to Shrewsbury and Telford on that important point.
Daniel Kawczynski
I concur with my hon. Friend and with the point that he makes in his usual eloquent way. I have been told by the chief executive, and others, that if we do not go for the proposals, we will potentially put our foundation trust status at risk. If we put that at risk, there is the possibility of losing services—and the management of those services—out of the county. Again, I speak without medical experience, but I do not understand how we could enter into a consultation process but be told that if we do not go for the proposals, services will be lost from Shropshire.
I cannot envisage a time when we have no maternity or paediatric services in the whole of Shropshire. That is unthinkable to me, so I do not understand the logic of the trust. It is saying, “Take it or leave it, but if you leave it, that’s it. We won’t get our foundation trust status and you’ll lose your services.” That position needs to be clarified because many people see it as a gun being pointed at their heads and are therefore frightened to challenge the proposals.
Glyn Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tolerance in allowing me to make a second intervention. The point that he has just raised is key. Everyone, including, I am sure, my hon. Friend, recognises that there must be a reconfiguration of services. The points that have been made are crucial. However, that does not necessarily mean that the reconfiguration of services that is before us has to be the case. The argument is not about whether there should be a reconfiguration of services, but about how that should take place. In the interests of the people of Montgomeryshire, I think that services are best placed not where it is convenient for a balance in Shropshire, but where they are accessible to the people who will use them.
Daniel Kawczynski
I completely concur with my hon. Friend on that point.
I shall briefly relate a couple of specific cases. I have been inundated with hundreds of letters on this issue. My own daughter was born at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and it was the proudest day of my life when my daughter was born within the community that I represent. She is not just a Salopian; she is a Shrewsbury girl and she will have that with her for the rest of her life. For us in Shrewsbury, being a Salopian is important, but being a Shrewsbury girl? Now that is something special. I feel so passionately about that.
One constituent’s family is directly affected by the proposals, as her three-year-old son needs 24-hour open access to the children’s ward at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital because he suffers from severe haemophilia. He needs treatment to be administered every other day and any additional treatment on demand if he should cut himself. I was told that it was vital for my constituent’s son to be admitted immediately to the children’s ward via A and E and not to be sent down the motorway to the Princess Royal hospital. How can that mother of a son with haemophilia empower herself to make her views known if the overview and scrutiny committee is not minded to refer this issue to the Minister?
The issue has also been raised with me by the father of a child who was previously a cancer patient treated at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. He talks about the appeal in 2003 for a designated children’s cancer unit at the Shrewsbury hospital. It raised £500,000 and the unit was completed in 2005. My constituent told me that
“many people across Shropshire and Mid Wales donated or gave up many hours to fundraise, only to now find that the purpose built unit will…stand unused as Children’s services are being moved to Telford with no provision for this desperately needed unit which provides an essential service to families facing unimaginable turmoil whose children are being treated for cancer.”
I have been told of the severe disruption and anguish that will result from the need for seriously ill patients to travel from Shrewsbury if it is left with no consultant-led surgery, which may result in a catastrophic delay in emergency treatment.
I also want to mention Joshua, a young boy in my constituency who has chronic lung disease. His mother, Hayley Corfield, wrote to me about him. He has had bronchial problems since birth and is now 14 and constantly in and out of hospital. I have been given the most extraordinary list, which I will send to the Minister, of the medications that this poor young boy is on. He lives in Shrewsbury. His mother tells me that there have been many near misses in the last few years in terms of saving his life—resuscitating him. She is desperately worried about the impact on her son and the chances of his survival if, suffering from this chronic disease, he has to travel for an extra 20 minutes to Telford. I am therefore raising these issues with the Minister today.
The Minister kindly wrote to me. In his letter, he notes that I am planning to call a public meeting and encourages me
“to ensure views from that meeting are fed back to the local NHS via the consultation mechanism, so local concerns are fully taken into account.”
The next part is the bit that I am excited and happy about and grateful to him for—I know that he is one of the best Ministers we have. He says:
“The Department will be watching the outcomes from the consultation exercise with interest.”
I know that he cannot get involved at this stage, but I am extremely grateful that he has said that he will be watching with interest the outcome of that consultation process.
I have today written to all the general practitioners who practise in Shrewsbury and Atcham. Again, the Prime Minister stated at Prime Minister’s questions, and it was reconfirmed to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that the views of local general practitioners would have to be taken into account before any reconfiguration process could occur. I wanted an independent assessment of their views, rather than it being handed to me by the PCT or anyone else. I have therefore written today to all the general practitioners in my constituency and I urge my hon. Friends to do likewise if they so wish. I will compile the results of the views of local general practitioners in Shrewsbury and will share their views anonymously. I will not refer to specific people, but I will share their views with the Minister.
I am extremely grateful for the 15 minutes that I have had and for the constructive way in which we have debated this issue. It is extremely emotive. I do not want to get into a Shrewsbury-Telford pillow fight. We have had enough of that over the years. I want to work constructively with my colleagues and with the trust to come up with the best possible solution for our beautiful county.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate on hospital services in Shropshire. I am sure that his constituents will be pleased to know that he has raised an issue of such great importance to his local community. I also pay tribute to the staff of the NHS across the whole of the county of Shropshire, who do such an incredible job caring for the constituents of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). They deserve and will receive the Government’s full support.
Before I come to the specifics of Shropshire, I shall set out the Government’s general approach to the reconfiguration of health services, as my hon. Friend referred to the answer that he received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. The Government passionately believe that local decision making is essential to improve outcomes for patients and to drive up quality. We do more than just talk about pushing power to the local level; we are doing it.
In May 2010, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health identified four crucial tests that all reconfigurations must pass. First, they must have the support of GP commissioners. Secondly, arrangements for public and patient engagement, including local authorities, must be further strengthened. Thirdly, there must be greater clarity about the clinical evidence base underpinning any proposals. Fourthly, any proposals must take into account the need to develop and support patient choice.
I understand that NHS West Midlands has given an assurance that the case for change is underpinned by those tests. Let me be clear what that means. Hospital closures that do not have the support of GPs, local clinicians, patients and the local community should not happen. There should be ample opportunity for patients, local GPs and clinicians and local councils to have a far greater role in how services are shaped and to ensure that these changes will lead to the best outcomes for patients.
It is important to remember that local public consultation is the vehicle through which to ensure that everyone with an active interest in proposed changes to their local health service gets their say. In this case, local consultations began on 9 December 2010 and are scheduled to conclude on 14 March 2011. My hon. Friend mentioned it, but if it is any consolation to him, Christmas and the new year holidays came during that period. The normal consultation time is 12 weeks, and if my maths is right this consultation process will take 13 and a half weeks including the holidays.
It should be stressed that consultation is by no means a fait accompli. It is a democratic process that allows full and open participation in considering all the options for service change. If an overview and scrutiny committee is not satisfied that adequate NHS consultation has taken place, or decides that proposals do not meet the needs of the local community, it may refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Health.
I understand that there has been a long history of debate on the best way to organise hospital services in Shropshire. A previous review failed to provide a lasting way forward for the county. Local organisations are now taking this review forward, and they believe that changes need to be made in the near future to ensure that services continue to be provided safely. Over the last decade, the NHS in Shropshire has identified a number of services, including accident and emergency, acute surgery, maternity, neo-natal, in-patient, paediatrics and urology, that face an increasing challenge in trying to provide 24-hour cover by senior medical staff at local hospitals.
As the public consultation document explains, there are five main reasons for that. First, the increasing specialisation of staff means that fewer consultants are able to provide general emergency cover. That is a particular problem in general surgery if it is split between two sites. Secondly, out-of-hours arrangements mean that some consultants have to cover a number of services and sites at the same time. That places unrealistic pressure on staff, and it can put patients at risk. Thirdly, the European working time directive limits the time that medical staff are allowed to work to an average of 48 hours a week. Fourthly, due to the relatively spread-out nature of the Shropshire sites and the area’s rurality, it can be difficult for junior doctors to see the wide range of patients necessary for their training. Fifthly, those factors collectively could make it difficult to recruit high-quality medical staff, particularly consultants.
The current configuration of services results in duplication between the Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal hospitals. It also limits the ability to develop the more specialised services that could be provided in Shropshire, Telford and The Wrekin. That is not sustainable.
This is the opportunity for all those with an interest in making changes to local health services to become involved. My hon. Friend has called for an additional public meeting in Shrewsbury; that takes place on Friday 11 February. As I said in my letter, I strongly encourage my hon. Friend to note the views raised at the public meeting, so that they can be fed in to the consultation process. Before a final decision is made following the conclusion of the consultation process, those views will have been heard and considered.
The consultation document explores four options. Option 1 is to do nothing. That is not considered feasible by the local NHS. A second option is to concentrate all major and emergency activity on the site of one or other of the existing two hospitals, with planned activity at the other. That has been looked at carefully, and I understand that that is not considered feasible either. A third option is to build a new hospital, but that has been discounted because of the financial climate. A fourth option, the preferred local NHS option, means moving services between the two sites to make the most effective use of staff, equipment, and buildings.
The consultation document suggests that this is likely to mean that the bulk of in-patient, children and maternity services—
Mr Burns
As I was saying when we broke for the Division, the consultation document suggests that this is likely to mean that the bulk of in-patient, children and maternity services will be provided at the Princess Royal hospital in Telford. A range of acute surgery, including trauma and orthopaedic surgery, and various surgical and other services would remain at, or move to, Shrewsbury. Both sites would continue to provide midwife-led maternity units, with improved accommodation provided for the midwife-led unit at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital site. All pregnant women who are assessed as being likely to have a low risk of complication in the later stages of pregnancy would still have the opportunity to choose to have their baby in a midwife-led maternity unit or at home.
Gynaecological services and antenatal out-patient and day care services will continue to be available at both sites, as will children’s out-patient services. It is proposed that a number of specialist surgery services, whether for planned or emergency operations, would be concentrated at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital: vascular surgery; colorectal surgery, and upper gastro-intestinal surgery. I also understand that funding will be made available so that the Royal Shrewsbury hospital will gain phase 3 status as a specialist aortic aneurism centre.
The consultation states that most surgery for life-threatening trauma is already carried out by surgeons at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and that would continue to be the case under these proposals. Also, 24-hour accident and emergency services will remain at both hospitals. Therefore, proposals in the consultation document appear to point to a vision of both hospitals providing a diverse range of services that complement each other.
This review has been led by clinicians. Proposals are based on work led by senior doctors, nurses and other health care professionals in the county, working with partners from local authorities, community and voluntary organisations, and patient and public representatives. I understand that the local NHS has involved a number of clinical staff in its local assurance process, including clinical experts from outside Shropshire, such as the director of nursing from Leicester Royal Infirmary and a consultant paediatrician from Manchester, as well as a number of clinical staff with related experience who work within the trust but who had not been involved previously in developing future options.
I am assured that NHS West Midlands will consider results of the public consultation, as is appropriate, before any results are presented to the local NHS boards. I also understand that the local NHS is keeping all local MPs briefed on the consultation process.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has campaigned vigorously in the past for retaining services at his local hospital. May I assure him that I fully appreciate his desire for a process that is open and transparent, one that does not end with decisions made behind closed doors after only a derisory nod to public consultation? His constituents, like those of all right hon. and hon. Members, deserve local health services that have the confidence of local GP commissioners and of local people themselves.
I also point out to my hon. Friend that because we are in the middle of a consultation process it would be totally inappropriate for me to seek to influence or compromise that process by becoming directly involved. There are avenues open through the consultation process, as my hon. Friend knows well, and I know that he is working vigorously, as demonstrated by his holding a meeting in Shrewsbury on 11 February, to make sure that the voice of his constituents is heard and considered as part of what is a very important consultation process for the whole county of Shropshire, to ensure the right configuration of services in local hospitals to meet the needs of local people.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Council Tax
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
On 13 December, I indicated that when the House debated the final local government finance report I would set out council tax capping principles that will apply to local authorities’ budgets for 2011-12. I am therefore now informing the House that I will consider an authority to have set an excessive increase if:
(a) the amount calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for 2011-12 is more than 92.5% of—
(i) the authority’s alternative notional amount; or
(ii) where no such amount has been specified for the authority, the authority’s budget requirement for 2010-111; and
(b) the amount calculated by the authority as its band D council tax for 2011-12 is more than 3.5% greater than the same amount calculated for 2010-11 (except see below).
Different principles will apply to the Greater London Authority (GLA), and to the councils of Central Bedfordshire and Shropshire. The reasons for this are—
in the case of the GLA, because the authority calculates its council tax in a different way from other authorities2, and
in the case of Central Bedfordshire and Shropshire, because the authorities set their basic amounts of council tax for 2010-11 under part 4 of the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Finance) Regulations 20083 and may do so again for 2011-12.
My officials will write to these three authorities separately with further technical details about how the principles applicable to them will operate. However, I can confirm that the policy aim of the capping principles for 2011-12 is the same for all authorities and that the principles for the GLA, Central Bedfordshire and Shropshire are designed to ensure that appropriate comparisons can be made between the band D council tax set by those authorities in 2010-11 and 2011-12.
I am this year announcing these principles before the dates by which authorities have to set their budgets. This contrasts with the approach of the previous Government, which always required authorities to wait and see whether the council tax they had set would be considered excessive by reference to principles not decided until after the deadlines for setting their budgets had passed.
Moving forward, the Government intend to end the capping regime and replace it with a more democratic and localist measure to allow local residents to veto excessive council tax rises via a local referendum.
1Alternative notional amounts apply to all classes of authority except for fire and rescue authorities.
2Unlike other authorities, the GLA calculates two basic amounts of council tax; one under section 88(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and one under section 89(3) of that Act.
3SI 2008/3022. Central Bedfordshire and Shropshire were established on 1 April 2009. In order to equalise council tax more fairly in their areas, part 4 of SI 2008/3022 enables the authorities to calculate different basic amounts of council tax for their predecessor areas for up to five financial years. By contrast all other authorities (except the GLA) must calculate only one basic amount of council tax.
Research Projects
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
Today the Government are publishing a group of reports presenting the findings from research projects commissioned by the previous Administration.
There is a significant backlog of unpublished reports that were produced by the previous Government and over the next few months we will be publishing these reports in groups themed on a particular topic.
The reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements. We are publishing these documents in the interests of transparency and as part of our freedom of information commitment to publish the results of all commissioned research. For transparency, all completed work is being published regardless of format or robustness.
The five reports published today represent the findings from three research projects at a total cost of £191,000, excluding VAT. These findings cover fire-related topics.
The Government are concerned to ensure their research delivers best possible value for money for the taxpayer and that sums expended are reasonable in relation to the public policy benefits obtained. DCLG has put in place scrutiny and challenge processes for future research.
All new projects will be scrutinised to ensure the methodology is sound and that all options for funding are explored at an early stage. This includes using existing work from other organisations, joint funding projects with other Departments or organisations and taking work forward in-house.
Cost of Fire
(i) The Economic Cost of Fire: Estimates for 2006—This report provides an estimate of the cost of fire to the economy in England in 2006.
(ii) The Economic Cost of Fire: Estimates for 2008—This report was produced by DCLG researchers. The spreadsheet model developed for the 2006 estimates was used to update the cost of fire estimates to 2008.
Retained Duty System
(iii) Survey of Retained Duty System (RDS) personnel, former staff and FRS managers—Part A—A survey of serving and former RDS personnel. This is the first part of a report providing findings of a survey of serving and former RDS personnel in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(iv) A Survey of Retained Duty System (RDS) personnel, former staff and FRS managers—Part B—A survey of RDS managers. This is the second part of the report and provides the findings of an organisational survey completed by RDS managers from fire and rescue services in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Fire Service Emergency Cover (FSEC) major incidents risk assessment module
(v) FSEC major incidents risk assessment module: background research—This report details the work carried out to specify a method of assessing the risk from different types of major incident in a way that could be incorporated into the FSEC toolkit software and to provide suitable risk factors based on data available at the time of the work.
These reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements and are not a reflection of the current Government’s policies and priorities. DCLG is publishing these reports in the interests of transparency.
Copies of these reports are available on the DCLG website. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Review
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
Following the counter-terrorism legislation review the Home Secretary decided to replace section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a more tightly circumscribed power. Consistent with those changes, I have decided to make a similar amendment to a power of stop and search in Northern Ireland.
I intend to amend the power to stop and search a person without reasonable suspicion contained in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007. In future, prior authorisation by a senior police officer, confirmed by the Secretary of State, will be required before the power to search a person without reasonable suspicion to ascertain whether he has munitions unlawfully with him or wireless apparatus with him can be exercised by a police officer. I will also create a new power for police officers to search for such items with reasonable suspicion. In due course I will exercise the power in section 34 of the 2007 Act to make a code of practice governing the exercise of these powers.
Powers of stop and search for the military under the 2007 Act will not be amended.
Changes to the legislation will be brought forward in the protection of freedoms Bill, which will be introduced into Parliament shortly. Robert Whalley, the reviewer of the operation of these powers appointed under section 40 of the 2007 Act, is aware of the changes I plan to make.
House of Lords
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Small Businesses
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role they forecast small businesses will play in the Big Society.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy and have a vital role to play in growing the big society. Businesses already make a significant contribution in supporting local voluntary and community organisations by sharing assets and expertise, philanthropic donations and exchange of staff. In December of last year, we launched Every Business Commits, asking businesses to do their part in growing the economy as well as in helping to tackle social problems and building stronger communities.
Lord Harrison
Given the Government’s failure to define the big society and, indeed, the role of small businesses within it, especially in helping to strengthen local communities, will the Minister look again at the regional growth fund, whose administrative possibilities—the £1 million threshold that it applies and the early closure date—mean that there has been a restriction on small businesses? Also, given the Government’s failure in their tepid approach to getting the banks to help out small businesses, will she take up the idea proposed by the chairman of the London Stock Exchange to encourage blue chip companies to contribute to funding small businesses, especially those that are regional and have an innovative flair to them?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the big society is defined by many in this House as being what most of them have done for most of their lives. It is a volunteering, social action, philanthropic approach to life, but it is also about the opening up of public services to local control and devolution of power. The regional growth fund is a discretionary fund to stimulate economic growth and employment and will operate over a period of three years. In particular, it will help those areas and communities that currently depend on the public sector to make the transition to sustainable, private sector-led growth and prosperity. Small and medium-sized enterprises have a vital role to play in that.
Lord Laming
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if the big society means nothing more than what many of us have been doing for most of our lives, that would be a disappointment? I say this on a purely non-political basis. We now have an opportunity to regenerate local communities and to help them to become much more involved in their own quality of life. However, we can do that only if we get out into local communities and stimulate people to become involved.
Baroness Warsi
I agree with the noble Lord’s comments. Indeed, the big society goes beyond what noble Lords have been doing because, as I said, there will be devolution of power and an opening up of public services to local control. However, I am sure that noble Lords around the Chamber will agree that we can always do more.
Baroness Browning
Does my noble friend agree that for small businesses to play their part in the big society they need more of what the Government have already started, which is to remove the burden of regulation imposed by the previous Government, such as the burden of proof in disputes in court cases? I am also thinking of reducing the employers’ national insurance contribution and, particularly, maintaining a stable economy. In that way, small businesses will thrive, create jobs and play their part in society.
Baroness Warsi
I agree with my noble friend. We must also ensure that we cut back the red tape that stifles those businesses. Indeed, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are jointly working on a task force to do just that. It is also important that we open up public and government contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that they have a part to play not just in helping communities but in bidding for and having access to all government funding.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I know that the Government share the concern of all of us who live in rural communities that small businesses in rural areas should also be encouraged. I also know that there has been a commitment to widen broadband and speed it up. However, the two things throttling small businesses in the countryside, which has a higher ratio of self-employed people than elsewhere, are broadband and fuel and therefore transport. Will the Government say something about the urgency with which they take those issues, so as to encourage small businesses in rural areas as well?
Baroness Warsi
The right reverend Prelate raises some important points. As your Lordships may be aware, one of the first vanguard areas for the big society was in Cumbria and it dealt with that very point: the extension of broadband to rural communities. However, I take on board the other concerns as well.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I declare an interest as the secretary of the micro-business APPG. I became very aware as a Minister of the value of SMEs, VSMEs and micro-businesses to the security environment. Today, almost 105 years to the day since the launch of the “Dreadnought”, built by British workmen and enterprise in 12 months, can the Minister please assure me that we will reduce the red tape that is between those small companies and the Government? That is across government but particularly with the MoD, where it damages the ability of those companies to really help us.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, we are committed to reducing red tape in all sectors. Noble Lords will agree, and the Benches opposite will recognise, that business has been stifled over the past decade by excessive red tape.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, there is time for both Peers. Perhaps we could have my noble friend Lord Cotter first and then, if it is the will of the House, the noble Lord on the Cross Benches.
Lord Cotter
My Lords, it is well recognised that small businesses are a crucial part of the local community and are ready to deliver on the big society. Local enterprise partnerships were recently established to do this and to help small businesses. However, I point out to the Minister that there is great concern that big business is overshadowing small businesses in the local enterprise partnerships, which were intended to give opportunities for small businesses in the community to provide employment for local people. Will she look at that issue?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, business has always played a vital role in the community. The organisation Business in the Community has been doing that for many years. In light of the fact that 60 per cent of those employed in the private sector work in small and medium-sized enterprises, it is vital that small businesses play a role when local communities are planning local regeneration as part of the local economic partnership.
Companies: Executive Remuneration
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Donoughue
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to monitor the ratio of the average total remuneration of a chief executive of a FTSE company to the median wage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the Government have access to a wide range of statistics about remuneration and have two reviews taking place in this area; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills' call for evidence, A Long-term Focus for Corporate Britain, and Will Hutton's independent fair pay review. The Government will take further decisions following the conclusion of these reviews.
Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and note the initial steps, which are really quite good, in dealing with bankers’ pay. Is she aware, as I suspect she is, that the remuneration ratio of FTSE 100 chief executives’ pay and employee pay is currently well over 100:1 and that a recent figure I saw was 128:1, and that the gap has more than doubled in the past decade or so? Do the Government have any plans to deal with this problem which is socially divisive and where the increases often bear no relationship to profit performance? Will the Government require public companies to publish this key ratio in their annual reports so that the public, employees and shareholders can know the facts?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I am aware of the growing differential over the past 10 years in the pay of chief executives, executives and employees. The noble Lord will expect me to comment on the fact that this occurred in the decade of the previous regime and we inherited it. We are now looking very carefully at how we can get fairness into this. Excessive differentials are not helpful. At a time of challenging economic conditions, it is important that the focus is on linking rewards to growth.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I find myself very much in line with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on this. Does my noble friend agree that the prime interest in this matter lies with the shareholders of the FTSE companies? Is it therefore not reasonable and sensible to require in law that quoted companies compare the total remuneration of their chief executive with the average wage of their workers, and do that in their annual report which everyone can read?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, we are in the middle of discussions about these very subjects. They are areas that have been under review for quite some time. Some people ask that shareholders should have separate votes, and some people ask the Government to intervene in all sorts of ways. There are ongoing discussions, particularly about the role of remuneration committees. I emphasise that it is for shareholders to go to shareholders’ meetings and say what they think.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I was for many years a member of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth which looked at data going back to the 19th century. We are now going back to the 19th century in so far as we had these ratios certainly before the First World War. Although it may be said that the gap occurred under a Labour Government—and some of us raised this question then—do this Government think it is satisfactory that it continues to grow, rather contracting?
Baroness Wilcox
I suppose what the noble Lord is really asking about is directors’ pay and fairness. That is where we all are now. I think we would all agree that there must be a robust link between the pay of those who run companies and the performance of those companies; that rewards for failure are not acceptable; and that exceptional rewards for mediocre performance are not in anybody’s best interest. I can assure noble Lords that this Government are very interested in making sure that companies are run well and that there is fairness in distribution on the payment for everybody in a company.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, in the previous Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Gavron, introduced a Bill, widely supported on all sides of the House, that provided for publication in the annual report of public companies of the ratio that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, talked about. Would it not be a very simple matter for the Government to introduce that Bill? It would be a very effective way of naming and shaming.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, before I came to your Lordships' House today to answer this Question, I rather thought that this question was going to come from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who commented greatly on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gavron, when it was debated in 2009. The question on that Bill, which will fit with the questions I have been asked now, was: should the AGM meeting vote on the directors’ remuneration report be binding instead of advisory?
Baroness Wilcox
On the publication of information. At the moment, we are going through this again with the first report to which I referred, A Long-Term Focus for Corporate Britain. I shall be reporting on this just before Easter.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I raised this question previously with the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, and I referred him to the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Gavron. His response was that it was too radical. Does the Minister share that view?
Baroness Wilcox
We shall look at this carefully. I do not think anything is beyond review. I am very happy to look at anything and I am not afraid to either, so I am delighted to answer your question.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that she is concerned about a widening gap. I want to refer to the agricultural sector. If the Minister is concerned about such a gap, why are the Government proposing to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board which provides some protection against the exigency of the wage structure in that sector for very low-paid and vulnerable workers?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that that is an entirely different question, but I am delighted that he took the opportunity to air it.
Water Supply: Northern Ireland
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistance they provided to the Northern Ireland authorities during their recent difficulties with water supplies.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, during the period of extreme cold weather, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland met the devolved Ministers with policy responsibility in this area and offered the Government’s assistance. He subsequently discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for the Environment and with Water UK, and helped to identify additional call-centre capacity to deal with the heavy volume of calls from customers in Northern Ireland who had suffered disruption.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I am reassured to hear that there was additional call-centre capacity, but I wonder what additional water was supplied.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
As far as water is concerned, there is no shortage of water in Northern Ireland. The good Lord makes good provision. The problem is getting the water to where it is needed. Extra water was pumped into the pipes but the problem was that some of that leaked out. However, the call centres were very important indeed and we must not forget that. An offer of assistance was made by the First Minister of Scotland—a sort of Christmas gift—and 160,000 litres of Scotland's water were taken across to Northern Ireland. I am sure that those in Northern Ireland were very pleased to have it. However, Northern Ireland's daily consumption of water is 625,000,000 litres. In other words, the gift from Scotland, welcome though it may have been, was 0.000256 per cent of a day’s water usage.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the people of Northern Ireland were greatly appreciative of the generous donation of Scottish water to Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that the Sinn Fein/IRA Minister, Conor Murphy, the Minister responsible for water in Northern Ireland, declined to ask for aid from a British Government or agency to the people of Northern Ireland in their hour of need?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I would not detract from the Scottish generosity to Northern Ireland. I am aware that the Minister in Northern Ireland was involved in discussions with my honourable friend. It is not clear to me whether he believed that there was a request that he ought to make. Assistance was offered to him in regard to the call centres. I would like people to understand that more than 400,000 people on one day tried to telephone Northern Ireland Water and only 4,000 of those calls were answered. Therefore, bringing in the call centres, which were available through Water UK, a UK and Northern Ireland-wide body, was a tremendous help to people who were seeking it.
Lord Smith of Clifton
Does my noble friend agree that successive Administrations, from the first Stormont through to the second Stormont, to both periods of direct rule and to the Stormont Assembly as now constituted, have totally neglected the refurbishment of water ducts and so on in Northern Ireland and it is now time that they addressed that?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Something like £2,000 million was invested in water in Northern Ireland in the 18 years up to 2006-07. Since then, a further £1 billion has been invested but it is quite clear that more money is required for investing in the infrastructure. However, acquiring help in the crisis is a different issue compared with long-term involvement in the infrastructure.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I was there at the time, so I can tell the noble Lord that there was a bit of bother in the south as well. Incidentally, a piece of work was published yesterday by the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland showing that the biggest problems were people understanding what was going on, indicating that they had problems, wanting assistance and getting through to those who could help. That was the problem in Northern Ireland. If you look at the 60-page paper that was produced yesterday by the consumer council, you will see that it believes that Northern Ireland Water—these are the council’s views, not mine—was not prepared for an emergency of this type. It has been asking Northern Ireland Water whether it could see the advanced planning in case there is an emergency and it had not had it.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, my noble friend has sought to distinguish between the crisis and the long-term structural inadequacy that most people believe is the reality in Northern Ireland. I hope he will not mind me saying that the big problem that the Northern Ireland people had was not a lack of information so much as a lack of water. Does he believe that getting structural change in the hope that such a crisis will not happen again is more likely to take place if the water service is privatised?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, it does not matter what I think about whether it is privatised or not. It is not up to the Government either. This is a devolved matter. You cannot devolve something and then say, “We are going to make the decisions”. The water service in Northern Ireland is a devolved service and it is up to the people in Northern Ireland—I believe there will be an election there before too long—and to those who are elected to decide what sort of water service is required. Northern Ireland and Scotland have state water and in England we have a privatised service. It is their decision because it is a devolved matter; it is not our decision.
Apprenticeships
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to maximise the number of apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the Government are strongly committed to investment in apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds. The latest data show that 116,800 young people started an apprenticeship in 2009-10, a 17.5 per cent increase on 2008-09, and we are keen to see continued growth. Some 60 per cent of the overall apprenticeship budget for 2010-11 is for 16 to 18 year-olds. We expect there to be more than 131,000 16 to 18 year-olds starting an apprenticeship in 2010-11. Funding for 16 to 18 apprenticeships will increase by a further £19 million in 2011-12.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I thank the Minister for his Answer. I was impelled to ask this Question as this is National Apprenticeship Week, as I am sure he is aware, and we have record levels of youth unemployment. The previous Government achieved a record number of apprenticeships, rising from 65,000 to nearly 280,000. I am glad to see that there will be an increase in spending. The Government are asking businesses to co-operate in recruiting apprentices but what pressure are the Government putting on government departments and local authorities to recruit apprentices, especially in the 16 to 18 years range?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the Question in National Apprenticeship Week, as he said. I am very aware that few people in this House have done more to promote the cause of apprenticeships than him. I know that he takes a personal interest in this. During his time as a Minister, he and his ministerial colleagues did a lot to get apprenticeships taken seriously again and to increase the number of them. I personally, and the Government generally, are keen to build on that. In National Apprenticeship Week, we have already seen a number of employers in the private sector coming forward with new apprenticeship schemes. The Government should absolutely keep up the pressure on the public sector to do so. There is an exemption on apprenticeship recruitment in government departments—that is one way we can help. However, I agree with him that we all need to keep up the pressure. I would be very keen to work with him and other noble Lords to raise the profile of apprenticeships and do what we can to encourage the provision of more places.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, how far have the Government succeeded in finding employers to take up these new apprenticeships, and how many of them are college-based, programme-led apprenticeships?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I believe that 85,000 employers are involved. A number of large employers have increased their offers of apprenticeship places in National Apprenticeship Week. The National Apprenticeship Service can encourage more employers of all sizes—not just large employers—to become involved. There is a task for everyone in raising the profile and importance of apprenticeships, and in making it easier for employers to become involved. There is an issue around the bureaucracy involved in this. If we can make it simpler for employers to participate, we should do so.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I congratulate both Governments on their records on making more apprenticeships available. Does the Minister agree that it is equally important to make more apprenticeships available to those in the age group somewhat above the 16 to 18 year-olds, who may well have missed out on previous opportunities, no doubt often due to circumstances such as deprived backgrounds?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am glad to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that as well as increasing the number of apprenticeships available for 16 to 18 year-olds, we are increasing the number available to people older than 19.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, the Minister is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green, who, when he was a Minister, legislated in this House to bring forward a guarantee of an apprenticeship place for every suitably qualified 16 and 17 year-old. Why, then, will the Minister’s own Education Bill get rid of that apprenticeship guarantee?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The difference between us is in essence a philosophical one. As I hope I have demonstrated, both sides of the House are committed to the idea of increasing the number of apprenticeships, their status and the esteem in which they are held. The difficulty with the previous approach of offering a guarantee is that, given that apprenticeships are employer-based, they are dependent on employers providing the place in work, which is not in the gift of government to control. Giving a guarantee on which one cannot deliver does not seem to me to be a guarantee.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I welcome what the Government are doing with regard to apprenticeships and giving young people a chance, but can steps be taken to contact self-employed journeymen and journeywomen— there are far more of them now than has ever been the case previously—to encourage them to take on apprentices? Small businesses and self-employed people are worried about the administration involved in apprenticeships. Can they be helped with the administration? Nothing beats a self-employed man or woman taking on an apprentice and becoming a mentor to him or her.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I have huge sympathy with the noble Lord’s point and agree with him entirely. I am sure that we can do more. We are trying to establish a system across the country but journeymen face difficulties in this regard. I know of a local farrier in my village who wants to take on a young lad but it is not straightforward, so I very much take that point on board and will certainly look into it.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, the Minister referred to the challenges of getting businesses and organisations to take on young people as apprentices. That is why the Labour Government required public sector bodies to commit to provide a number of apprenticeships. Therefore, why have this Government now absolved the Civil Service, local authorities and health bodies—all of them major employers—from those specific commitments? Does the Minister not agree that the public sector should show a lead here and help to meet the huge demand for apprenticeships among young people?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I have already said, I accept fully that there is a role for both the public and private sectors to play. If we are able to encourage more people from the private sector to offer good apprenticeships with good opportunities for employment and progression, that is good, and young people are keen to get into those kinds of jobs. However, I also accept that we should do as much as we can to encourage the public sector to play its fair share as well.
Electric Personal Vehicles (Use on Highways) Bill [HL]
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:51 - Division on Amendment 22D - Ayes: 275 / Noes: 257 - Amendment 22D agreed.
17:51 - Division on Amendment 25 - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 250 - Amendment 25 disagreed.
19:01 - Division on Amendment 25ZB - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 247 - Amendment 25ZB disagreed.
19:39 - Division on Amendment 27F - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 222 - Amendment 27F disagreed.
20:50 - Division on Amendment 30A - Ayes: 136 / Noes: 195 - Amendment 30A disagreed.
Lord Pannick
“Exceptional circumstances5A If, but only if, a Boundary Commission is satisfied that—
(a) it is necessary to do so in order to achieve a viable constituency, and(b) such necessity arises from special geographical considerations or local ties, as defined in rule 5(1)(a) or (d) above, of an exceptionally compelling nature,the Boundary Commission may decide that the electorate of the constituency shall be—
(c) no less than 92.5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota; and(d) no more than 107.5% of that quota.”
Lord Pannick
Amendment 22D stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of Horton and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve.
The purpose of the amendment is to recognise and address the competing strength of the arguments advanced from each of the Front Benches on a matter of considerable significance: namely, the extent to which the Boundary Commission should have flexibility to depart from the electoral quota for each constituency laid down in the Bill. The Government contend—this is a very forceful argument—that equality in this area is of enormous significance. They have already recognised a 5 per cent margin either way. One must be very careful about giving any further flexibility lest one undermines the important goal of equality. Those arguments are very forceful, but equally forceful are the arguments advanced by noble Lords on the opposition Front Bench. They point out that equality is not the only goal: geographical considerations, local ties and community cohesion are also important in this sensitive area and there may be constituencies where the Boundary Commission would wish to depart from the electoral norm further than the 5 per cent margin.
The amendment recognises the force of each of those arguments and it suggests that the solution is to confer on the Boundary Commission in its discretion a very narrow—I emphasise very narrow—additional discretion to allow for a departure from the electoral norm of up to another 2.5 per cent either way. That would apply only if the Boundary Commission believes, in its judgment, that two criteria are satisfied. The first criterion is that a further departure must be necessary—not reasonable nor desirable, but necessary. The second criterion is that it must be necessary in order to address special geographical considerations or local ties—already the criteria in Rule 5—of an exceptionally compelling nature. On a matter as important as this, it is appropriate to include in the Bill that limited additional flexibility outside the 5 per cent norm, but I accept that it is absolutely vital that any such flexibility is defined in a way that ensures that the exception does not swallow the rule.
Amendment 22D has been drafted with the assistance and encouragement of noble Lords from all parts of the House. It has been drafted in a manner that I am confident achieves this narrow objective. I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Mr Mark Harper, the Minister in the other place and the Bill team for the time and trouble that they have taken in discussing with me very patiently and courteously the Government’s concerns about this issue. I really have tried my best to accommodate those understandable concerns in this amendment in a constructive manner. There remain, I understand, four main concerns that Ministers still have. I will briefly identify and seek to address them.
The first concern is that the criteria, particularly the term “exceptional” are subjective. The Boundary Commission will, Ministers fear, be under pressure from people in many constituencies to recognise that their cases satisfy these criteria. The answer is that the criteria are very narrowly defined and the Boundary Commission will, I am sure, respect the clear limits in both the language and purpose of the amendment. I refer noble Lords to a 1998 judgment by the late and much lamented Lord Bingham of Cornhill, where he explained in another statutory context what “exceptional” means. He was, incidentally, rejecting arguments from counsel, Mr Clegg QC—no relation. Lord Bingham said that exceptional means something,
“which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon”.
There are many contexts in which Parliament has used the term “exceptional”, and public bodies are used to exercising narrow discretions accordingly.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, my name is also on the amendment, so ably presented by my noble friend in moving it, and I rise to support it. The amendment is of course a compromise, but it is perhaps all the better for that, because I think that some noble Lords think that compromises have not been very frequent during the long passage of the Bill.
There are two, very strong reasons for noble Lords to support the amendment. First, with the proposed reduction in the number of Members of Parliament and the redrawing of the constituency boundaries, we are entering into, through the work of the Boundary Commissions, a very substantial operation. It is very difficult to foresee where some of the difficulties may arise for the drawing of sensible constituency boundaries. Is the 5 per cent proposal in the Bill enough? We are not sure. This is perhaps a typical situation where a very small increase in the margin for exceptional circumstances could make the difference between a good-sense constituency and a nonsense constituency.
Secondly, this amendment has been very carefully drawn up, as my noble friend explained, to ensure that, while providing a small additional margin for use in exceptional circumstances, it does not significantly conflict with the Government’s objective of achieving an equalisation of the size of constituencies. This is quite clear, because the use of the extra margin in the amendment is limited to cases where it is “necessary”—a very strong word—to achieve a viable constituency. Surely the Government want viable constituencies. The amendment provides also that such necessity must arise from special geographical considerations—inconveniently placed mountains and so on—or local ties of an exceptionally compelling nature. These considerations or local ties are already in the Bill at Clause 11, but, in this amendment, they are permitted to play a role under very strict conditions.
From time to time, I speak to schools about the work of the House of Lords. I intend to cite this amendment as an example of a wholly reasonable amendment that has been tabled in the spirit of the way in which we work in this House. It would certainly help me if I could cite it as an amendment discussed and then included in a Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it and make that possible.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, perhaps I may make a wholly reasonable response to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Williamson, and commend them on the way in which they have put forward their amendment. I entirely accept the spirit in which it has been proposed. We have had some pretty unhappy times in past days in this House. I have not yet spoken on the Bill, but I felt that we had reached the moment when I wanted to make a contribution.
I am one of the Members of this House who has had his boundaries changed often enough in his earlier life. It is not totally world shattering; it happens; there have to be adjustments. There has sometimes been rather too much suggestion that it is almost a criminal offence to change some constituency boundaries. I do not regard it in that way. It is a necessary move. With population changes and demographic growth, there is an obvious need at times for boundaries to change.
As noble Lords said, the amendment is a compromise. It is not unfair to say—I do not wish to misrepresent the noble Lords—that it might have been conceived at a moment when it appeared that there was deadlock in this House and when we were going through a very unhappy period. I think and hope that the House is now conducting itself in a way that many of us hoped for, where there is reasonable debate and where there are then proper votes on which—as is clearly the Government’s point of view—you win some and you lose some. That is surely what democratic debate is about.
I come to this part of the Bill with two considerations. I believe that there must be more equal constituencies. I do not know whether anyone in this House would challenge the fact that there are serious discrepancies in the size of constituencies that must be put right. I believe also that that must be achieved by 2015. I was very struck by a comment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who said in moving the opening amendment yesterday:
“If we took no action, the next boundary review may not take effect until 2020. This would mean that in 2018 there will be electors who reach voting age and register to vote who will not even have been born when the basis of the pattern of representation in the Commons was determined”.—[Official Report, 8/2/11; col. 128.]
We all know that it is very constipated and far too slow a process.
Does the amendment help? Is it making constituencies more equal or less equal? There is only one answer to that. At the moment, the Government are proposing a spread of 10 per cent. This amendment proposes a spread of 15 per cent, which would allow for the possibility of less equal constituencies. I admired enormously the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I hope that that does not sound patronising—when he said that the knock-on effect of moving from 10 per cent to 15 per cent, meaning that other constituencies might have to have more or less, is not different in principle. Of course, he is right, but it is rather different in quantum. I think the noble Lord will understand that point as well. This amendment allows the possibility of less equality, so I cannot support it on that ground.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I am sure that that is not true because I know that I can talk to the Cross-Benchers, many of whom—
Lord King of Bridgwater
Perhaps I may just finish my sentence. I have had the pleasure of working with many Cross-Benchers over the years who will bring their independence of mind to this House.
Lord Pannick
I reassure the noble Lord that there is no Cross-Bench position on this. Each Cross-Bencher who has considered this issue has a position. Many of them agree with the views that I explained to the House, but some of them no doubt will not agree. There is no official Cross-Bench position.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I am extremely grateful and, of course, I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says. That is entirely as I understand and hope it will always be in this House. There have been suggestions in other directions, and I am very glad to have the authoritative response of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this point. I accept that this is entirely well intentioned and is intended to be a constructive amendment for the reasons that I have given, but it fails to pass the two essential tests of this Bill: more equal constituencies and getting new boundaries in by 2015. I hope that the House will not support it.
Lord Maples
My Lords, I, too, hope that the House will reject this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moved it in extremely reasonable and persuasive terms, but it is a bit of a split-the-difference amendment. There has been a call for a 20 per cent spread—10 per cent either way—in the debates in Committee, and 7.5 per cent seems to be a nice compromise between 5 per cent and 10 per cent. However, 5 per cent is quite a lot.
The underlying principle of this Bill is that constituencies should be of equal size. Five per cent either way seems to be reasonable latitude to allow the Boundary Commission in setting those constituency boundaries. It means that the biggest constituency will be about 8,000 voters bigger than the smallest. If we went to 7.5 per cent, that difference would be somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 voters. I do not believe that there should be any exceptions to this rule. I am not persuaded about the Isle of Wight or the Scottish island seats. I do not see why those specific geographical considerations should outweigh others.
I was a Member of the other place for two constituencies, one urban and one rural. All of us who have been in that position can construct reasons to persuade the Boundary Commission why our constituency is special or different. We have all had different geographical considerations and a weight of problems and correspondence in one area that another constituency does not. In my experience, they roughly balance out and the workload is about the same. I do not expect that the number of immigration cases in the Western Isles is very large, and I have some difficulty with whether the workload there is great enough to justify a constituency electorate of, I think, 21,000. There is a principle at stake here that constituencies should be of equal size.
Another issue with this amendment is that, whatever the noble Lord says, it introduces areas of vagueness and subjectivity, including what is “viable”, what is “an exceptionally compelling nature” and “local ties”. Some of these expressions are already in the Bill. When the noble Lord said that judicial review of a Boundary Commission decision was unlikely to get very far and would be dealt with very speedily, I could not help asking myself whether he would give a client exactly the same advice as to whether this was a hopeless prospect.
It seems to me that there is not just the possibility of one case of judicial review; there is the possibility of a great many cases of judicial review. I think I share with my noble friend Lord King an absolute determination that these new boundaries should be in place for the next election. This unfairness has to be eliminated. The amendment makes that less likely. It introduces some concepts of vagueness, which will make the Boundary Commission’s task more difficult and will possibly, although I have to defer to his professional expertise on this, make judicial review more likely. It also seemed to me that his arguments would be equally valid if, instead of putting in 7.5 per cent, he had put 10 per cent or 15 per cent. The figure of 7.5 per cent seems to be a somewhat arbitrary half way between 5 and 10 per cent.
At the next election, the biggest constituency, if the Bill stays as it is, will not just be 10 per cent bigger than the smallest; it will be considerably more than that because the Boundary Commission’s decisions will be based on the electoral registers as they were at the end of last year. If one looks at the problem that this has created in the past, in the 2005 election—I shall pick just two examples—Sheffield Brightside was 19,000 voters under the quota and Banbury was 19,000 over. By the 2010 election, which was based on the year 2000 registers—10 years earlier—the Banbury constituency was about 9,000 voters over quota and the Sheffield Brightside constituency was 9,000 under. At the last election, only 218 seats were within the 5 per cent quota; 161 were within 5 per cent to 10 per cent; 200 were within 10 per cent to 20 per cent; and 60 were more than 20 per cent out.
The next boundary review will be a bit better than that because it will be only five years in arrears, but it will still be based on registers that will at that point be about five years out of date. I have done some very rough arithmetic; one would expect 200 seats to be more than 5 per cent out and about 60 to be more than 10 per cent out. Anything that goes further from the principle that the constituencies should be of equal size should be resisted. Five per cent gives the Boundary Commission considerable leeway, and I would be very reluctant to see the Boundary Commission allowed more subjective judgments and more opportunities for judicial review, or a result in which a considerable number of constituencies were more than 5 per cent away from the average.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I should like to make it clear to the House that I speak as an individual and support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said: that the Cross-Benchers are never to be seen as a group. We all vote according to our individual consciences, as we see our position in this place. I live in an area that has had three changes of constituency in the past three elections, and I have not had the slightest problem with that. I also recognise the importance of all these changes being done by the next election in 2015. Consequently, I totally support the Government’s approach that there should be a leeway of 5 per cent each way. However, I support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I played no part whatever in drafting the amendment, and indeed had not read it until I came into the Chamber this afternoon. If one reads the amendment with care and listens with care to what the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Williamson of Horton, have said about it, it is perfectly obvious that it would give the Boundary Commission leeway in an exceptional, small group of cases. It is not intended to disrupt or change the standard situation, which is the proper way in which to readjust constituencies that are out of kilter.
As someone who has been a judge, I would say that it would be most extraordinary if there was a judicial review of any of these cases. If there was one, it would be very unlikely that the result of that one would encourage further judicial reviews.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I wish to address individual consciences on this matter. I do so having reflected on yesterday’s debate about public inquiries and the role of lawyers and legal challenges in the Boundary Commission process, and having noted that that debate was almost entirely dominated by those from the legal profession. I speak as someone who is very much not a lawyer and who cannot possibly say that he is in any way above the political fray between parties about elections, campaigns and constituencies. However, I am someone who, over more than 30 years, has had extensive experience of fighting and organising elections in many dozens of different constituencies in every part of Great Britain, in general elections and in parliamentary by-elections, as well as extensive involvement in the Boundary Commission processes that have gone into drawing up those constituencies in the past.
I very much appreciate the very sincere efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Williamson, and other noble Lords, to try to see whether some reasonable consensus or agreement might be reached and to try sincerely to improve aspects of the Bill in reasonable time, so that the Bill is agreed on the timetable that the Government want. However, there is a fundamental problem with the definition that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and his noble friends have drawn up. There is simply no reasonably agreed and commonly accepted definition of the key phrase “a viable constituency”. There is no agreed definition, and to try to agree on it would be a subject of great controversy. Without a definition of a viable constituency, we are simply inviting four different Boundary Commissions to devise their own definitions of the phrase, which I believe would be very controversial. Nor was it clear to me—or I think to anyone else, although I am not a lawyer—what the meaning of the phrase “exceptionally compelling nature” might be. The Boundary Commissions would have a lot of argument about what considerations of an exceptionally compelling nature are.
I can easily see large numbers of lawyers in many courts arguing for a very long time over definitions of a viable constituency and over exceptions, such as geographic ties and local considerations, which in themselves are very vaguely defined, that might be considered to be of an exceptionally compelling nature. Such phraseology will, I am in no doubt, lead to many legal challenges to the Boundary Commission’s processes, which should be determined by independent boundary commissioners using the criteria given to them by Parliament. They should not be determined by lawyers in the courts arguing over these definitions. Too many problems in the past have been caused by legal arguments. A noble friend of mine, when a Member in the other place, came to me for advice on how to handle Boundary Commission processes. I gave him the best of my advice—and, of course, it was free of charge. By the time he had consulted learned counsel on how to make his representations to the Boundary Commission, a bill in excess of £10,000 had been incurred. If we pass an amendment such as this, we will have to go on by defining viable constituencies and exceptional circumstances, and there will be many legal challenges. These issues will be determined by who has access to the funds for which party, which MP, which candidate and in which constituency. That will be a wholly unsatisfactory process.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he was creating a narrow definition in this amendment. With great respect to the noble Lord, it is absolutely not a narrow definition to try to say what a viable constituency is or what wholly exceptional circumstances are. They are two very widely defined concepts. He also said that he was trying to reassure Ministers who are concerned that the exception might become more general. This amendment will fail, because the exceptions will become very general.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I rise simply to say a word about the possible effect of litigation on the timetable proposed for litigation. The possibility of delay was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pannick, who has great experience in this field. It is my experience that the prospect of obtaining a favourable end result to the litigation is not the only reason why people commence litigation. Both as a barrister and as a judge, I remember cases in which litigation was commenced not with any realistic prospect of success at the end but simply for the purpose of achieving delay. Where judicial review is concerned, the permission of a judge is required. So the applicant goes in front of the judge and sets out his case, asking for permission to start judicial review. Sometimes a judge will grant him permission when he ought not to have done. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, proposed the likelihood that permission would be refused in the cases of judicial review as a result of this amendment, and I do not dispute that—but there might be a judge who would grant it. If permission is refused, the applicant can then renew his application for permission in front of the court of appeal and try again. Throughout this process, which will take a little time, whatever expedition might be granted by the courts, the pending litigation will deter the Boundary Commission from getting on with its job.
I support the amendment—or at least I think I do; I am listening carefully to the arguments for and against—but I would not wish this House to proceed on the footing that a degree of delay might not be occasioned by litigation of the sort that I have described, which may be vexatious litigation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Would it be unfair to ask the noble and learned Lord to utilise his vast experience of judging to comment on the point just made by my noble friend Lord Rennard as to whether the definition of a viable constituency would be an issue that delayed a competent lawyer for some considerable time, especially if paid per diem?
Lord Scott of Foscote
A competent lawyer will give an opinion on that after he knows the facts. The notion that the constituency proposed is not viable will have to depend on facts, some of which are bound to be much stronger than others. As a general proposition, the question of what a viable constituency is and is not will be a subjective matter and one properly for the Boundary Commission. Whether there was an angle that would allow an attack to be launched would depend on the facts of an individual case and is not something that could be answered in the abstract.
Lord Elton
My Lords, before we come to a conclusion, there is something about which I need to remind myself and your Lordships. It is necessary to keep two or three things in mind. As my noble friend Lord King has already reminded us, at present the Bill permits a variation of 10 per cent, whereas what is proposed is a variation of 15 per cent. I need to remind myself that we are talking not about numbers, areas or acreages but about the value of votes. The proposal is to raise to 15 per cent the discrepancy between the value of a vote in one constituency and in another.
The principle of the Bill is to try to reduce the variations so that everybody’s vote is roughly equal. My subjective—but not, I think, unreasonable—view is that 10 per cent is quite enough. That gets around an awful lot of arguments that have been made and, for me, it is conclusive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, may I take up the point which I made yesterday? It is really for the Boundary Commission, which exerts no political influence and has no political influence upon it, to decide what is a viable constituency. That cannot be explained in a definition which you write out in black and white; it is a matter of common sense for the commission. To impede that by a lot of legal processes and lawyers—I am one, although I am a bit past my sell-by date now—is a tremendous mistake and, although it is well intentioned, I do not support this amendment.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, once upon a time there was a man called Procrustes. He made a very beautiful bed, and he liked people to come and lie on it. Being a man of very high and strict principle, he insisted that the bed and the people should fit. Unfortunately, he made the bed unalterable, so he had to make the people fit the bed. He either stretched them out a little if they were too small or chopped a little bit off if they were too tall, with painful, serious and sometimes fatal consequences for the people concerned. Quite apart from the consequences for the people concerned, Procrustes found his reputation deeply damaged; great hostility was shown towards him and there were demonstrations in the street.
Then four good, independent people came along and suggested a simple mechanism whereby some of the strain could be relieved. It was closely restricted; it could be used only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons of an extraordinarily compelling nature. It was a simple mechanism whereby, in these very exceptional cases, the bed could be stretched or shortened by a very small amount. The number of cases would be few but there would be cases in which the variety of human nature was recognised and allowed for and the painful consequences to which I have referred were avoided.
There were many arguments about the principle; it was thought to be very proper, good and strictly maintained. I am sorry to say that Procrustes grumbled greatly about the idea that there should be any stretching or changing of the bed. But in the end he accepted that there had been one or two cases which he agreed should be allowed past and the exceptions and exceptionally compelling reasons were such that the further breaches of the principle which would ensue would not be very serious or great. Therefore, grumbling, he accepted—to the relief of those few people whose lives and bodies were spared and, in the end, to the contentment of Procrustes himself, who accepted that this small degree of flexibility had enabled the bed to survive and the principle to be broadly maintained.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, this amendment allows the Boundary Commission, in very exceptional circumstances, to exercise its discretion within a range of 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made the point that this would give people who wished for one reason or another to delay the operation of the reforms greater scope to introduce litigation. Of course, even within the 10 per cent provided in the Bill, the Boundary Commission is exercising discretion. It is not clear to me why, in these very exceptional circumstances, there would be more scope for challenging under the 15 per cent variation than under the 10 per cent. If people, for reasons of their own, wish to obstruct this process, is there not exactly the same power to do that under the 10 per cent provision? The advantage of having 15 per cent is that without giving much greater scope—or, indeed, any greater scope—for challenge, the Boundary Commission can reach reasonable recommendations in cases where it is necessary.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, my point about the prospects for potential legal challenges is not relevant to the 5 per cent or 10 per cent consideration. It is purely about the existing Boundary Commission criteria as in the five previous general reviews undertaken by the Boundary Commissions.
Lord Glentoran
My Lords, I think noble Lords are allowed to speak only once on Report.
Lord Rennard
I understood that an intervention on a matter of clarification was allowed. My point is that the criteria of the Boundary Commissions are clearly established and therefore not likely to be subject to future legal challenge. Interestingly, the amendment contains wholly new criteria regarding viable constituencies and considerations of a wholly exceptional nature.
The Countess of Mar
The Companion says that noble Lords may make a brief intervention in order to clear up a point. The noble Lord is making a speech.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I think I was briefly clearing up the issue, which I have done.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we have had a very good and a very short debate. I support entirely the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We moved an amendment at an earlier stage in these proceedings proposing 10 per cent in exceptional circumstances. As the noble Lord has described, the Government, through a variety of Ministers, raised a number of reasons why a succession of amendments would not work. In relation to each of the problems raised by the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, produced a sensible solution.
At the heart of what the noble Lord is suggesting is acceptance of the principle of much greater equality, but there will be exceptional cases where it is necessary to give effect to an exception based on geography or local ties where a small bit of procrustean flexibility is sensible. That is a classically common-sense amendment which should be considered on its merits.
With the greatest of respect to the well known legal expert, the noble Lord, Lord King—a much respected figure in the House—I suggest that noble Lords look at the matter on the basis of the merits of the argument being advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. They should ignore views about the conduct over this Bill, ignore what the position may be in the future and ask themselves, “If we, as a House, agree this amendment to the Bill, will people outside this House think well of us and think that we improved the Bill in a way that gave a sensible degree of flexibility?”.
Almost the most powerful speech that we have heard in the course of the debate came from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who said that this should be an object lesson in how this House should operate. That is, the power of the argument on the merits should succeed. Of course, I am parti pris and therefore not in a position to give an argument that would be regarded as anything other than subjective but, my goodness, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has done the work, which nobody else has done in relation to this debate. I commend his amendment to the House.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his amendment. I also thank all those who have contributed to what has been a very good debate. Given the way that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, presented his amendment, I am sure several constituency associations will be lining up to engage him for various cases when the Boundary Commissions bring forward their proposals. I appreciate not only the manner in which the noble Lord presented the amendment but his willingness to engage. As he recognised in moving the amendment, considerable efforts have been made to see whether the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, could find common ground.
The effect of the amendment would be to give the four Boundary Commissions discretion to propose constituencies with an extended 15 per cent range—from 92.5 per cent to 107.5 per cent of the United Kingdom’s electoral quota—in the event that the commission considers that exceptional local ties or geographical circumstances make it necessary to create a viable constituency. As my noble friend Lord King indicated, at the heart of this part of the Bill is the principle of seeking equal value—one vote, one value—and doing so in order that the new boundaries can come into effect for the general election to be held in 2015. The Bill before your Lordships’ House is founded on the clear principle that constituencies should contain an equal number of voters. Having given great consideration to the points put forward and the detail, we do not believe that these principles would necessarily be achieved—they would certainly be put at risk—by passing this amendment, so we find that we must resist it.
The principle that constituencies should contain an equal number of voters is not exactly new. The existing legislation—the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986—requires the Boundary Commissions to recommend seats that are as near to equal as practicable. The problem with that legislation, as has been mentioned on many occasions during our debates in this House and the other place, is that although it clearly sets the goal of equal constituency sizes, the mutually contradictory rules in the Act result in a wide variation of constituency sizes. That is not an abstract problem. One person, as we have said, should mean one vote. Nor is it just a matter of local representation; the nature of our parliamentary democracy means that one’s vote is one’s stake in who forms the Government of the day. As we have also heard in debates, turnouts will vary but the system should not compromise an elector’s stake in the Parliament long before a ballot has been cast.
That is why the Bill that the Government brought to this House had very few named exceptions to the parity principle—only two constituencies out of 600. The specific exceptions that we made were born of the necessity to guarantee effective representation in constituencies that were not only geographically remote but had no obvious link to a mainland constituency. The same principle informs the geographical size limit, which also has very limited application. I acknowledge that there is a range of views across your Lordships’ House on which specific areas, if any, should have such treatment in the Bill. However, as has been said, the general principle of equality is accepted on all sides of the House. That equality informs the guiding principle in the rules in Clause 11. It is clear that absolute equality is neither desirable nor practicable. That is why the Bill already moves from absolute equality to allow flexibility for the Boundary Commissions to vary seats by 10 per cent between the smallest and the largest. My noble friend Lord Maples made that point. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would allow a range of more than 11,000 voters between the smallest and the largest.
The figure of 5 per cent, moving as it does from absolute equality, has a rationale. We have made it clear that in our judgment it is the closest to equality that can be achieved while allowing wards to continue being the building blocks of constituencies in most cases in England. For local government reasons the wards in Scotland and Wales are somewhat different. However, the figure seeks to strike the right balance between the principle of “one elector, one vote” and the opportunity for local flexibility. Last night we debated a government amendment that will reinforce the notion that the commission should use wards in this way.
I hope no one can doubt the Government’s commitment to the guiding principle in the Bill: that as far as practically possible there should be equality of treatment between electors. In our view, the only case for exceptions to this principle should be where Parliament has determined that the exception is merited. We have debated, and will return later, to several specific exceptions. That is how we should move forward when we approach these very difficult issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, fairly pointed out some of the concerns that the Government have rehearsed with him as we have discussed these matters. Our first concern is that, although I understand where the amendment comes from, it breaches the principle of equality of treatment. The Boundary Commissions would be set a clear task by the Bill’s provisions: to propose constituencies that are within the same range of 7,500 electors across the whole of the United Kingdom, subject to the two named exceptions. There is also the exception that has already been voted for by the House. The same rule applies to everybody unless an exception has been explicitly approved by Parliament. That does seem to be an approach that is rooted in some principle.
By contrast, the amendment asks the Boundary Commissions to grant a number of special seats outside the general rule, effectively conferring special status on electors who live there. That could put the Boundary Commissions in a difficult position. Let there be no doubt that the Boundary Commissions would be in an invidious position. A decision about special treatment for one elector has a direct impact on an elector elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that the impact would be felt in a next-door constituency, but it does not necessarily follow that it would. This is particularly the case in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where there is less scope in the number of seats to make adjustments. To take Scotland as a case in point, on the 2009 electorate figures Scotland would have 50 seats plus the two exceptions. Once the commission had proposed a number of smaller seats at 92.5 per cent to take account of the sparsely populated areas in the highlands, the result would be that it would have to allocate larger seats on average elsewhere.
That could already happen to some degree under the Bill; the key difference is that at present under the Bill there is one rule for everyone. In other words, one part of the country’s exception would be another part of the country’s squeeze. There would be less flexibility in another part of the country, which might be some distance away. Under the amendment, the commission would be asked to award greater power to electors in a smaller number of seats outside the norm for the rest of the country. As my noble friend Lord Elton said, that goes against the principle of the value of the vote as set out in the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment would ask the commissions to trade off the rights of different communities alongside potentially far-away constituencies.
There is a further point, which relates to timing. If these changes were made as a result of representations taken after the first period of consultation, because exceptional circumstances had been identified at the second phase, constituencies that were perfectly happy and content with the original proposals might well find that because a change was made in one or two places the ripple effect meant that what was acceptable first time around would not be acceptable second time around.
I recognise the attempts that have been made in the amendment. Regarding judicial review, on which much has been said in this debate, I agree with the noble Lord that the amendment would send a clear signal to any court considering a judicial review of the Boundary Commission’s decision to exercise flexibility. However, I am concerned less about the verdict of the court than the effect that the amendment might have on the conduct of the boundary review in practice. There might be an effect not only on how the commission balanced the specific factors referred to in the amendment but in the greater subjectivity to which the amendment could lead. The noble Lord’s prediction that a commission may ultimately have the support of the courts, if the matter were put before them, might turn out to be right, but the effect of giving the commission discretion for exceptional circumstances might, in the real world, mean that it felt compelled to use that discretion. The experience of trying to set a high bar to limit the exercise of discretion is not always encouraging. In reality, a procedure sanctioned expressly on the basis that it is intended as exceptional can, and sometimes does, end up becoming common practice.
My noble friend Lord Rennard made an important point on the question of what a viable constituency is. To whom is it viable? Is it viable to the electors or to the Member of Parliament? Also, there are four Boundary Commissions. If each took a different view on what constituted a viable constituency, the danger would be that we could move even further away from trying to achieve the equality that is at the heart of the Bill.
Even unsuccessful judicial reviews will have an impact on resources. I hear and give careful consideration to the points made by noble Lords with considerable experience, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I also heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, said about the opportunity to use litigation and judicial review as a means of stringing things out. On many occasions in our debates, noble Lords have mentioned that it is important that the Boundary Commission proposals are presented to Parliament and passed in good time for the 2015 election to be fought on new boundaries.
I make a further point on the figure of 7.5 per cent on either side of the UK boundary quota. I have already described the Government’s case for a range of 5 per cent on either side. I am not sure what rationale there is for the figure of 7.5 per cent; perhaps it is because it is half way between 5 per cent and 10 per cent. Sometimes compromise is right, but, as I have indicated, strict equality would be zero. Our movement to accepting a 5 per cent variation already allows for some of the geographical considerations and local ties that have been mentioned.
In conclusion, exceptional treatment would not help some of the specific cases that have been debated—for example, in Argyll and Bute. It would not guarantee the sanctity of the Tamar. I recognise and welcome the spirit in which efforts have been made to find common ground on which we could have moved forward. I thank all noble Lords who have sought to help us make progress. However, I hope that I have set out that, in practice, the amendment not only would place the commissions in a difficult position but could breach the principle of equality of treatment that is at the heart of the Bill. There would be a potential risk that the Boundary Commissions’ target of reporting before the next election is fought in 2015 would not be met. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for the reasoned way in which he addressed the points that I have made at all stages. I hope that this House is performing its vital function in relation to constitutional matters.
The noble Lord, Lord King, said that his concern was whether the amendment would promote equality, but equality is not the only value recognised by the Bill. The Bill accepts that there should be a 5 per cent variation either way. It accepts that there should be exceptions for Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles and, as a result of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, the Isle of Wight. Equality is not the only value; there are other considerations that noble Lords will wish to take into account. The noble Lord, Lord Maples, said that he would not accept any of those exceptions. That is a logical position that I respect, but it is not the position taken by the Bill. It recognises that there are and there have to be exceptions to equality.
The second concern of the noble Lord, Lord King, which was shared by some noble Lords, was about delay. The noble Lord, Lord Maples, asked me specifically whether I would advise a client that a judicial review is hopeless. My short answer—indeed, it is also the long answer—is yes; in the context of a statutory provision that confers discretion, by reference to the criteria of necessity and exceptionally compelling circumstances, I would advise that it is hopeless.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, expressed—if I may say so—a more nuanced view. I hope that that might demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord King, if nothing else does, that the Cross-Benchers do not think and act as a group. If the noble Lord still has any suspicions in that respect, he may wish to look at yesterday’s Division lists, which will confirm that we do not think and act as a group on these vital issues.
My point is not that judicial review can never be used to delay action in any context. My point—which, with respect, was not addressed by noble Lords who are understandably concerned about this—is that in this context, where the criteria are so narrow, subjective and political, judicial review is simply not realistic; it is not an appeal to the merits. The key point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who rightly pointed out that if noble Lords are concerned about judicial reviews holding up the process, the real concern—which I do not share—should be about judicial reviews of the exercise by the Boundary Commission of the subjective functions that it has been given already under Clause 11. Those functions are not circumscribed in the way that the amendment circumscribes this discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, expressed great concern about the term “viable”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “workable” and “practicable”. It is not simply that “viable” is in the amendment; it is linked to a concept of necessity and a judgment by the Boundary Commission of what is necessary. That is the answer to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, expressed concern that, under the amendment, Boundary Commissions would set different standards for different constituencies. They would not; the same criteria would apply to all constituencies. Of course, their application would differ according to the circumstances, just as the application of the existing Clause 11 criteria—the same criteria for all—will differ according to the circumstances of the constituency, and rightly so, in the judgment of the Boundary Commission.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord King, pointed out that noble Lords should not accept an amendment simply in order to secure a compromise. He is right. I commend this amendment to the House not because it is a compromise but on its merits. It is fair, reasonable and workable. I say to all noble Lords that in the context of a Bill that makes fundamental changes to our constitutional arrangements—a context where consensus is vital if it can be achieved—it would be desirable, if possible, to give the Boundary Commission a carefully controlled discretion outside 5 per cent, which will undoubtedly give a large degree of reassurance to those who are concerned about the fundamental changes that we are making to an important aspect of our constitution. That would be a wise step for Parliament to take. My central point is that the amendment is right on its merits and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Special authorities(1) The geographical area of a special authority shall, so far as is practicable having regard to the rules of this Schedule as they apply to England, form part of not more than one constituency at any time.
(2) Where the geographical area of a special authority forms part of not more than one constituency, the name by which that constituency is known shall refer to that area.
(3) In this rule, “special authority” has the same meaning as in section 144(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.”
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I last moved this amendment, prior to withdrawal, in Committee last month in the small hours of 19 to 20 January. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who eloquently supported the amendment on that occasion, has drawn my attention to the House of Lords newsletter entitled Red Benches, No. 23 dated 7 February 2011, and its column “Procedural Corner”, where we are reminded that the Companion states:
“Arguments fully deployed either in Committee of the whole House or in Grand Committee should not be repeated at length on report”.
My observation of this rule may reassure your Lordships’ House today, but I must explain the more cryptic aspects of the amendment.
The amendment relates to the City of London, where I served for 24 years as Member of Parliament in the other place, making me the City’s third longest-serving Member since 1283. I commented in Committee that the definition of a “special authority”, referred to in paragraph (3) in the amendment, is,
“an authority covering an area with a population of less than 10,000 whose gross rateable value divided by its population is more than £10,000”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. 481.]
In other words, it is an area that is primarily commercial and not residential, and that applies uniquely in the United Kingdom to the City of London. The fact that this anonymous description uniquely applies to the City avoids any suggestion of potential hybridity. I will add to this arid language only the verdict of the Duke of Wellington’s ally at Waterloo, Field-Marshal Prince Blücher, who, on being taken up to the dome of St Paul’s to survey the City from on high, simply opined: “What a splendid city to sack”.
The words,
“so far as is practicable”,
in paragraph (1) in the amendment, while establishing a presumption, avoid adding any rigorous straitjacket to the Bill, and paragraph (2) in the amendment lays down:
“Where the geographical area of a special authority forms part of not more than one constituency, the name by which that constituency is known shall refer to that area”.
This mirrors the present statutory status of the City.
In Committee, I set out the long history of the City of London constituency, which merged with Westminster as recently as 1950, and described how it led up to its precise present status. In Committee, the Minister kindly agreed to a meeting with us between Committee and Report, and I thank him both for that and for his open-mindedness. I thanked in Committee those who universally spoke in favour of the amendment on that occasion, and I single out in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on the Benches opposite, who moved a similar supportive amendment of her own that evening. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment, as I did on the previous occasion. The City of London is the very heart of the community of London and of the country. It is bounded on one side by the Thames and on the other by very different areas. It is worth keeping as a discrete area. It has been laid down in law that it should be a single constituency ever since it lost its own unique representation. I support the amendment because the City has an unusual local electorate, with many businesses voting. I think it is right that the City, which is so important as a financial centre, should have a single Member in the other place to which it can relate and who will speak on its behalf. Therefore, it should be kept whole, rather than risk being moved into two or even three other constituencies.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lord Brooke and reiterate my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his kindness in meeting several of us to discuss the amendment.
One has to remember that the City has fewer than 7,000 electors. It is smaller than a great many wards. The arguments for keeping it as a single whole to be attached to one other constituency seem to me to be overwhelming. The idea that one should split the City between two or three different constituencies is very odd indeed. The only question is: does that need to be reflected in the Bill, as under my noble friend's amendment; or is it enough to leave it to the boundary commissioners? I strongly urge that there should be some reflection of this very important case in the Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will be able to give us some comfort.
Lord Bach
We on the opposition Front Bench also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. We hope that he has, in his usual way, managed to persuade the noble and learned Lord of the good sense of what he proposes. I give him a word of advice: if he does not get satisfaction from the noble and learned Lord, I suggest that he presses the issue to a vote.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for tabling the amendment and the other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, who have spoken to it. As my noble friend said, Amendment 22E requires that the area of a special authority, as defined by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, should form part of only one constituency, and the constituency name should refer to that special authority. As he said, in practice, only one authority area satisfies the definition of a special authority, and that is the City of London. As has been explained many times, the number of exceptions in the Bill has deliberately been kept as low as possible. In introducing the Bill, the Government accepted only two seats where there is genuine extreme geography precluding them from being readily combined with other constituencies.
As has been said, we debated an equivalent amendment in Committee moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. That made clear the expert knowledge of many noble Lords of the past and present of the City of London, and their connections with it. I certainly would not wish in any way to diminish the rich history of the City, nor the importance which the City has played and continues to play in the life and economy of our nation.
From a practical point of view, I hope that I can offer some reassurance by reminding the House that in the 25 wards in total, the City has approximately 7,000 electors, which is smaller than some individual wards. Although it would be for the Boundary Commission to decide, I suspect that it is unlikely that the City would be split between two constituencies. Nevertheless, I recall the argument made that it is desirable from an economic point of view to have one MP who can say unequivocally that he or she represents the City of London’s interests in Parliament. I certainly valued the opportunity to meet my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Jenkin and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. They elaborated on the potent arguments that they made in their speeches in Committee, which they have made again today.
I have clearly heard the case that they make. The Government understand the strength of that concern. Although I cannot commit myself to the wording of the amendment, I am happy to tell your Lordships' House that we will take this away and that I fully expect to be able to address the issue when we return to this at Third Reading. I hope that, on that basis, my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in the debate; I am grateful to them for what they said. Everyone who has the welfare of the City of London at heart will be grateful for what the Minister said. In the light of his response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) a constituency named Brecon and Radnor, comprising the present constituency of Brecon and Radnor”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, we had a very good debate on the case for keeping the constituency of Brecon and Radnor on 24 January—my, that seems a while ago—at cols. 795-805. The case was supported then not merely from these Benches but from the Cross Benches in remarkable speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who said that it would be a “colossal, monstrous injustice” if that constituency were changed.
The case, in a nutshell, is that this is the largest constituency in England and Wales. It takes one and a half hours on poor roads from one end to the other, but at 58,000 its electorate is well short of the electoral quota. What really makes it different is that it cannot expand south, because that would take away still more voters from the valley constituencies, which are themselves short of electoral quotas. It cannot expand east because constituencies cannot cross country borders. Therefore, it has to go into sparsely populated and unrelated areas, either to the west or to Montgomeryshire, to the north. That argument was strongly put, including again by my noble friend Lady Hayter. I hope that I have the same luck on this amendment as she had on the previous one.
Only one person spoke against that proposition: the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who was not, perhaps, at his formidable best, because he went off to hospital soon after—I hope not as a result of any remarks that I made about him. He has, happily, recovered—he is smiling on the Front Bench now—so I hope that, having thought about it long and hard in his hospital bed, he will now feel able to accept the amendment.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, although in better health than the last time I spoke, I am not sure that I will be able to please the noble Lord any more. When he tabled the equivalent amendment in Committee he argued that the exception was necessary for two reasons: first, there was no logical way in which the existing constituency could expand to allow it to sit within the 10 per cent band of tolerance around the UK electoral quota; and, secondly, there was a challenge of accessibility which would increase if the surface area of the constituency increased. On the first point, we certainly acknowledge that the constituency could not expand to the east, as that would mean crossing the border into England, which is prohibited under the Bill. However, on the other points that he makes about expansion in the other directions, we believe that this is a task best assessed by the Electoral Commission itself, and we will wait to see what it does on this.
That brings me to the noble Lord's argument on geography. In Committee, he said:
“It took me an hour and a half to get to a Labour Party meeting in the south of the county quite recently”.—[Official Report, 24/1/11; col. 797.]
Although I was tempted to use the old joke, “I had a car like that once”, I know—because I visited my late and most lamented friend Lord Livsey in his constituency—that it is an enormous place, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has acknowledged. However, I do not think that it would be useful to compare exact distances and journey times in various constituencies because one person's enormous place is another person’s back garden. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, reminded us in Committee of some Australian parliamentarians whose constituencies are the size of Portugal. Nevertheless I believe that, in general terms, there is a real distinction in magnitude between a 90-minute car journey that may be undertaken at almost any time of day or night and, say, a 12-hour ferry trip from Shetland to the Scottish mainland which is possible at only a handful of times each day.
Concerning the difficulty of constituencies which cover large surface areas, it is also worth remembering that the Bill takes that into account. The Bill provides for a maximum size of around the largest current constituency area because the Scottish Boundary Commission recommended that this area was manageable for both MP and constituents. As that was the last time that this question was considered at length, and using the independent expertise of the Boundary Commission, this seemed to us the best benchmark to use in our proposals today, and it was also discussed last night.
We are open and ready to be flexible with the noble Lord's proposals where they do not contradict a key principle of the Bill. Keeping preserved constituency exceptions to an absolute minimum is important to support the Bill's fundamental aim—the degree to which votes throughout all four parts of the UK have equal value. Provided that the constituency sits within a 10 per cent band of tolerance as the Bill provides, the Bill allows specific geographical factors to be considered, as is the case today.
I do not in any way dismiss the challenge that the MP and constituents have in a constituency such as Brecon and Radnor. However, we are testing against a high bar: the principle of one elector, one value. Because the bar is set high we feel that it is justified to test these claims thoroughly and reach different conclusions. We recognise the challenges of Brecon and Radnor, but we also take the view that it does not justify exemption when compared with some of the large constituencies of the Highlands. We feel that this position sets up a reasonable balance between being sensitive to local circumstances and allowing votes throughout the United Kingdom to have a more consistent value. I therefore, sadly yet again, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
The very sheep are baaing their dismay at the words they have just heard in their fields in the Brecon Beacons. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“( ) a constituency named Ynys Môn comprising the whole of the island of Anglesey”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will not detain the House long; many distinguished noble Lords will know Wales and the island of Anglesey much better than I do. It is an island constituency which deserves exemption in much the same way as your Lordships agreed to exempt the Isle of Wight recently. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this is another attempt to except a single constituency; we have already debated a longer list of proposed exemptions. In the case of Anglesey, where geography is concerned, the two road bridges crossing the Menai strait clearly show there is no question of Anglesey being a difficult place to travel to or to travel around for the MP or constituents. We believe that parliamentary constituencies often cross the boundaries of a local authority without taking away all the sense of identity of each community within the constituency. Nor does it take away the ability of an MP to represent various communities with different senses of identity in one constituency.
I understand the noble Lord's motives in moving this amendment, as I do those of other noble Lords who have a particular attachment to a constituency. However, the fact remains the same. If we are to pursue our overall aim of having votes of equal weight we do not want to make the type of exceptions that the noble Lord proposes. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
(1) All parts of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly must be included in constituencies which are wholly in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.
(2) Rule 2 does not apply to these constituencies.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I can perhaps help my noble friend on this one because this amendment is not at all about a single constituency—it is about something that is far more important than that. I remind noble Lords that, back in the early 1970s, a royal commission—the Kilbrandon commission—looked at the situation prior to the first attempt at devolution. It also looked at Cornwall. The report stated that what the people of Cornwall,
“want is a recognition of the fact that Cornwall has a separate identity and that its traditional boundaries shall be respected ... Just as the people of Scotland and Wales tend to resent the description of their countries as regions of the United Kingdom so the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county”.
It went on to describe a,
“special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall”.
I do not think that Cornwall’s position could be described better than that. Indeed, Cornwall is seen by many—not just Cornish people themselves but its residents and those who move there—as the fourth Celtic nation of the United Kingdom. It has a Celtic language. It has Celtic place names and family names. It has that whole tradition. It was not a part of Anglo-Saxon England, and many will say even now that it was not seen as a part of England until well into the previous millennium.
It is the area of culture, history and geography that makes Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly a very important exception which should be recognised within the Bill. The background of its culture, as I said, is Celtic. Its industries—fishing, agriculture and particularly tin mining, which goes back many centuries—are a particular characteristic of Cornwall. More recently, China clay has been mined there. Apart, I concede, from a little bit of Devon, that is a unique feature of the area. Many noble Lords will know that place names beginning with “Pol”, “Tre” and “Pen” are unique to Cornwall and to be found at a high density. They go back to the Celtic language, which is actually closer to Breton. Brittany is a region with which Cornwall still has a close relationship.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher, I wonder whether I might be permitted to say something as someone who has lived in Devon for 45 years. I should like to endorse the fact that Devonians have absolutely nothing in common with Cornwall. The Tamar is a genuine barrier between Devon and Cornwall. Perhaps not all noble Lords will know that although you are welcome to go into Cornwall, you have to pay to come out. I wonder what a Member of Parliament with a constituency partly in Cornwall and partly in Devon would be expected to do if, every time he visited a constituent on one side of the Tamar or the other, he actually had to pay the toll. That is just an indication of the fact that Devon and Cornwall are quite separate places.
So far as we in Devon are concerned, Cornwall is foreign territory. Indeed, that is exactly what the author Daphne du Maurier said in her famous books about Cornwall. She wrote a splendid one that I think is called Rule Britannia in which she wished Cornwall to become independent of the rest of the country. I am not suggesting that Cornwall should be independent, but I believe it should have its own MPs and that they should not trespass upon Devon.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble and learned Baroness from across the water and probably across the frontier too. I support the amendment and I endorse everything the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about the view of the people of Cornwall, particularly of those at the eastern end where I live. The noble Lord did not mention the treaty between the Celtic Cornish and the Saxon English signed in AD 936 by King Athelstan which started all this off. I would compare this debate about the Tamar and the problem of mixing two races with the thought of what would happen if there was a constituency that crossed the border between Wales and England. I do not think that the people of Wales would like that.
I want to mention just one other thing. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly have recently been awarded a local enterprise partnership, one of the first to have been made. It is a great tribute to the county council and the other people who promoted it, and it is a fine achievement. It also demonstrates that the Government think that Cornwall is different and that it is separate. It has economic problems as well as many other ones, but the LEP demonstrates that one part of the Government thinks it should be separate. I trust that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will express his support.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to the human factor, and I think that I am actually the human factor, so on this occasion I wish to intervene. I carry a heavy load of family history in relation to Cornwall. My grandfather was the vicar of Padstow on the north coast, the vicar of Falmouth on the south coast, the archdeacon of Bodmin in the middle, and the canon of Truro, which is the county town. As I say, I carry rather a lot of weight that favours the amendment, and I support it. Incidentally, I am now 76 years old. The first memory I have of my entire life is that of my first visit to Cornwall, which was made in 1939.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Briefly, I ask my noble friend why, if this river and estuary are to be written into the law in this way, others should not be? We have already had arguments about the Mersey. I live in Essex and the Thames is at least as substantial a division between Essex and Kent, I suspect, as the Tamar is between Devon and Cornwall. One can think of a number of other rivers including the Severn, which is a big division between the south-west and Wales, so why are we going to pick out only one? The problem with most of these rivers—I am afraid I do not know the West Country well enough to know whether it is thus with the Tamar—is that a dividing factor at the mouth, where that is so big, becomes a uniting factor further inland, where towns straddle the same river: the Thames, the Severn or whatever it might be. It is not rational to build this kind of consideration into this kind of legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who, through the conduct of this sometimes slightly choppy Bill, has consistently carried the hopes of the people of Cornwall on his shoulders. He has spent a lot of time inside and outside the Chamber persuading people that Cornwall should be treated differently. He has persuaded us, strongly supported by the fact that we—and everyone else in this House—have heard forcibly from people who know about Cornwall. We support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and this House owes a lot to him.
One person who the noble Lord thought he might have persuaded was the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who said in Committee:
“Of all parts of the country, I think there is a genuine feeling in Cornwall”.
Unfortunately, he later went on to say:
“we reject the argument made in Cornwall because we want clarity and similarity to stretch right across the country”.—[Official Report, 25/1/11; col. 921.]
In this Bill, the Government have understood before they started that certain places required special consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, persuaded this House that the Isle of Wight should be given special consideration; the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has done the same service. Please listen to what the people of these places are saying. I very much hope the Government will accede to what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I do not have any doubt about the passion, sense of identity and pride that my noble friend Lord Teverson brings to this debate about Cornwall. We are well aware of the broad views of the various political groupings and of the Members of Parliament. Last night I heard the noble Lord, Lord Myners, explaining why he could not be here today but leaving his own views on this on the record. As always, with this, as with a number of the other amendments that we have discussed throughout this Bill and in recent times, we come again to whether a special pleading—I do not say that in any pejorative sense—outweighs the Bill’s objectives of giving equal weight to the votes.
I also understand the argument being put that Cornwall would rather have only four MPs than five if one of them crosses the Tamar. I am not sure whether that is actually in the best interests of the people of Cornwall. I do not really understand the argument that the pride and the identity—the pride in Cornwall’s rich history and the talk of strong community—that we have heard of will be diminished simply because one MP is going to take responsibility outside Cornwall. The answer to my noble friend Lord Newton’s question is that I totally agree that there is no unique argument about river borders and we have not applied that in the Bill.
I recognise the strength of feeling in Cornwall but I cannot agree that Cornwall’s position is similar to the Scottish island constituencies in terms of why the exceptions were accepted. By this, I mean that the Bill originally provided for exceptions on the practical level. Without these exceptions, we would be faced with constituencies that would be impractical for Members and constituents and so would deny effective representation. In other words, the genuinely extreme geography of the dispersed Scottish island groups does not make it possible to combine them with the mainland, for practical reasons. If we look at the Scottish island groups in this way, we do not think it possible to argue the same case for Cornwall.
I recognise the strong sense of identity that many have in Cornwall. I do not agree that parliamentary constituencies can create or destroy that identity. I believe that a parliamentary constituency can cross the boundaries of a local authority, without taking away at all from the sense of identity of each constituent community within that constituency. The fact that a parliamentary constituency might cross boundaries, be it in Ayrshire or Cornwall, in no way takes away from that sense of identity. I repeat; I have heard no argument that convincingly sets out the opposite case.
I know that we have had a lot of fun about Cornwall and Devon. I occasionally have jousts with my noble friend Lord Shutt about the relative merits of Lancashire and Yorkshire. That is part of a long tradition within our United Kingdom but it is very difficult to push those arguments too far. Further, I argue that there is strong evidence to support the case that constituencies can and do exist that contain more than one community with more than one sense of identity. Many Members of the other place represent diverse communities today, from constituents with rural and urban communities to those containing the speakers of dozens of different languages, all of whom have their different cultural identity. Belonging to one constituency does not detract from one or diminish that diversity. I believe that Members of the other place who are in that situation do an excellent job representing the various interests of all their constituents.
Again, I recognise the strength of feeling and pay tribute to the campaign that my noble friend has waged, but I cannot agree that we should depart any further from our objective of greater equality in the value of votes unless the geographical ramifications of doing so might create an impractical constituency. We do not see a sense of local identity and the setting of a parliamentary constituency as an either/or decision. Instead, we seek the best balance between respecting a local objective and a national one. Locally, the opportunity to voice one’s opinion to the Boundary Commission at a public meeting means that those commissions will be able to take local factors into account on a case-by-case basis. Nationally, we want electors to know that their vote counts and has equal weight as much as we possibly can. The Bill, we believe, presents the best balance between those two important principles, so, although I respect his passion, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but I am deeply disappointed by it. Perhaps I might first take up the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. I stress again that I am not just talking about physical rivers and saying, “Those are the boundaries”. The Tamar is a symbol of that boundary, rather than the river itself. Other rivers act as boundaries which this Bill does not allow to be crossed. Much of the passage of the Wye, at its south, is the border between Wales and England, and the Bill does not allow that to be crossed. How does Cornwall see itself? Some call it a nation; others see it as a historic nation of the United Kingdom.
I also disagree with the Minister on the importance of this. I stood for South East Cornwall in the 1992 election, and I was blessed with a visit from my noble friend Lord Ashdown. He was going to walk with me and all the media—there was a question of a hung Parliament at the time—down the high street in Saltash. He got off his battle bus and said to the gathered press of the south-west and the nation, “It’s great to be back in Devon”. That is why I never became a Member of the other House. Cornwall really believes in its own destiny, its future and its contribution to the United Kingdom, but it wants its own parliamentary constituencies, and on that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McAvoy
“Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway(1) All parts of Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway must be included in one constituency wholly within South Lanarkshire Council.
(2) Rule 2 does not apply to these constituencies.”
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, in the forlorn hope that, as I have not moved three previous amendments, the House will be a little tolerant of me for a couple of minutes, I would like to spend those two minutes moving an amendment about Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway. I have illustrated the arguments for Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway many times before, so I do not intend to repeat them and abuse the patience of the House.
Those areas have been together now for about 100 years. There are close connections and a bond between the historic Royal Burgh of Rutherglen, the Cambuslang community and the former mining area of Halfway. In 1975, there was an attempt by a previous Conservative Government to destroy the communities by moving them into the City of Glasgow. A more enlightened Tory Minister, Allan Stewart, and I got Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway out again. If one starts from the border with blocks of 75,000 or 76,000 people, as the Bill suggests, Cambuslang and Halfway could end up in the lower part of Scotland and Rutherglen could be in the northern part of Scotland; there would be only one way for Rutherglen to go and that would be with the City of Glasgow, which would mean the end of our parliamentary cohesion.
I hope a Liberal Minister replies because that would certainly make it plain to the people of Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway that it is a Liberal Minister who is rejecting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as a coalition Minister, I am more than delighted to reply to the noble Lord’s amendment, which would result in an exception for Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway so that they remained in a constituency which does not cross the boundaries of the South Lanarkshire Council area. The amendment in the Marshalled List brought back memories, as I recall my great aunt and uncle had a Halfway telephone number—I cannot remember the digits, but it was certainly Halfway exchange and, as a child, that always interested me as I wondered where it was halfway between.
I recognise the strength of the communities that the noble Lord used to represent in the other place but, as has been made clear on a number of occasions in Committee and on Report, the Bill as originally drafted had two named exceptions to the principle for a clear and tightly defined set of reasons. Both those exceptions involve remote locations and populations too small to be put in the parity target. The Bill now includes the Isle of Wight, following the vote in Committee on that. I do not think it is possible to argue that extreme geographical considerations apply in South Lanarkshire.
However, I have no doubt that when it comes to the Boundary Commission having regard to the circumstances and the community ties that link Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Halfway, it will be permissible under the rules for the Boundary Commission to take those ties into account and give such regard as it thinks fit to the fact that those communities have had historic links. I have no doubt that, under the public hearing arrangements for which the House voted yesterday, the noble Lord will—I have every certainty—make a very eloquent case when the opportunity for a public hearing comes, assuming that the Boundary Commission does not, in its original proposals, have Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Halfway together.
I think the noble Lord recognises that the case has not been made for an exception to be on the face of the Bill in this respect, but, of course, as I have indicated, community ties is an issue to which the Boundary Commission can have legitimate regard. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McAvoy
Obviously, I do not wish the Minister any ill will but I certainly hope that his late auntie and uncle are on his mind tonight when he is trying to get to sleep if he is going to do this to Halfway. I certainly hope that they have a word with him. Halfway is so called because it is halfway between Glasgow and Hamilton—I offer that bit of information to the noble and learned Lord.
The areas I have referred to suffer from the fact that they have had a Labour Member of Parliament for 46 years, and that seems to be a problem; other areas seem to find the circumstances to enable them to get exemptions from the Government. However, I recognise the reality and the bigger picture here in the sense that we will be dealing with different countries in the next amendment. I fully accept that. However, I assure the Minister that, when it comes to the campaign, the fig-leaf of claiming to be a coalition Minister will not do the Liberal Party much good in Rutherglen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“(6) The total number of seats to be allocated to any part of the UK shall not be more than ten per cent fewer than the current number of constituencies; and if the number of seats allocated by the process described in sub-paragraphs 1 to 5 of rule 9 exceeds that limit in any part of the UK then additional constituencies shall be allocated to that part to bring its allocation within ten per cent of the current number of constituencies.
(7) This number of seats shall then be the allocation for that part of the UK for the purposes of rule 9.
(8) Any reallocation to one or more parts of the UK made under the terms of sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) above shall not result in any change to the allocation already allotted to any other parts of the UK.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we have in this group two amendments which relate principally to Wales. The Bill will have a greater impact on Wales than on any other nation in the UK. Wales is projected to lose 10 seats of the 40 it currently has; that represents a 25 per cent reduction in its Westminster parliamentary representation. In Committee, we heard noble Lords from across the Chamber passionately describe the effect of that on Wales.
The Welsh Affairs Select Committee in the other place produced a report in October last year that was highly critical of the proposed changes. A decision to cut the representation in Parliament of one of the nations of the United Kingdom—Wales—by a quarter at a stroke should be shown to have been subject to the most careful and measured consideration and should be taken in the light of proper examination of alternative approaches, including a slower pace of change. The impact of the Government’s proposals on Wales is a complete departure from the current legal minimum of 35 seats for Wales enshrined in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. It is also a significant reduction in the number of Welsh constituencies in place when the Welsh people voted for the devolution settlement in 1998. That settlement, as the former Welsh Secretary, the right honourable Paul Murphy, noted in debates in the other place, was a package. It was, he explained,
“not simply the establishment of the Assembly, but the continuance of Members of Parliament, at that level, here in the House of Commons to protect the interests of the people of Wales and their nation. If we have a referendum, and there are greater powers, that might change, but at least people would have voted on it. However, in 1998, they voted for the opposite—the retention of Members of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 72.]
That point was echoed by Mr Simon Hart, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, who warned the Government that a reduction of 25 per cent in the number of Welsh constituencies ahead of the referendum on new powers for the Welsh Assembly was being decided,
“without any reference to the Welsh nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 119.]
This speaks to the second of the amendments in this group which the opposition Front Bench also supports. We acknowledge that there was a reduction in Scottish Westminster representation when powers were devolved to Holyrood. There may need to be a reduction in the number of Welsh Westminster seats following a similar pattern, but it is right that such a reduction should take place only once further primary law-making powers are transferred. For this reason we should await the outcome of the March referendum in Wales and then make a judgment. That is the tone and purpose of Amendment 30.
Putting aside the issue of the referendum, the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach would in effect ensure that there was no reduction in the number of seats greater than 10 per cent in any one country in the United Kingdom at one time. The imposition of a UK-wide electoral quota of the kind imposed by the Bill is bound to create one or two enormous Welsh constituencies that will be overwhelmingly rural in nature and will cover wide, and in places, inaccessible territories. It will force the construction of new constituencies in the Welsh valleys, which will be impractical, difficult and injurious to local community ties. We are not arguing that Wales should be protected from any reduction in parliamentary representation. We are political realists and we understand that the Government have basic objectives, including the creation of more equal sized seats. We recognise the legitimacy of some of those objectives. The question is whether they need to be pursued in quite so rigid and fast a fashion and in a way that excludes almost all other factors.
As we are beginning to see in debates and votes on amendments, those things which would inject a little more flexibility in the rigid rules set out in the Bill are implacably opposed by the Government. Wales appears an obvious area where sensitivity ought to be given to its special geographical characteristics as well as to its status as a small nation within a larger union in which England is the dominant force in wealth, population and political representation. The Welsh Affairs Committee stated that its concern was,
“about how the Government's proposals will affect Wales in ways distinct from the overall picture for the UK”.
While Wales will lose 25 per cent of its MPs, Northern Ireland will see a reduction of 17 per cent, Scotland 16 per cent and England 5 per cent. Our amendment seeks to assert that a more sensible approach would be to ensure that at any one boundary review no part of the United Kingdom should experience a drop of more than 10 per cent in its number of seats. If the Government profess to be interested in fairness, it is important that the interests of each region of the United Kingdom are properly heard at its national Parliament when national representation is being debated.
As I have said, the Government’s proposals would reduce at a stroke the number of MPs representing Wales by 25 per cent. As the Select Committee concluded, by any yardstick this would be a profound change to the way that Wales is represented in Parliament. Our amendment does not preclude an eventual reduction to that effect but would ensure that such a change would be gradual. I invite the Government to consider accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 25ZB in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and my noble friend Lord Bach, and to speak to Amendment 30 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea. I believe that they complement each other.
On 26 January we had an excellent debate on Wales. In particular, we were able to highlight the adverse impact that the Bill will have on Welsh representation in the House of Commons. That debate was conducted in the best traditions of your Lordships’ House. Powerful arguments were put for and against the question of whether Wales should have the statutory minimum of 35 Members of Parliament. That was introduced in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and, unlike this Bill, it had all-party support.
I say at the outset that I do not intend to repeat the arguments I made on that occasion. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has pointed out that Wales will lose 25 per cent of its parliamentary representation if the Bill is not changed. Indeed, 20 per cent of the entire reduction for the whole United Kingdom will come from Wales if the Bill is not altered. On 26 January the Government were unmoved by the merits of the argument that we put to retain at least 35 Members of Parliament. Indeed, they would not even take time to reflect on the merits of the case that we put. Reluctantly, of course, I and many others therefore accept that there will be a reduction in the number of Welsh constituencies and Members of Parliament. However, I urge the Government to consider that in the first boundary review the reduction should be limited to 10 per cent. Amendment 25ZB would allow for that.
On 3 March the people of Wales will go to the polls to decide whether powers to enact primary legislation in designated areas such as health and education should be passed from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the National Assembly for Wales. None of us knows for certain what the outcome of that referendum will be and for that reason I urge the Government to take these amendments seriously and to reflect on them. I believe it would make sense to pause and await the verdict of the people of Wales before deciding on such a drastic reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies. Neither of the amendments before your Lordships prevents the Government from making further reductions in the number of Welsh parliamentary constituencies in the future. They simply allow the process to take place over a longer period of time. That would be the time to reflect and consider the implications of a yes vote in the referendum on our constitution. The amendments would give time to consider the impact of passing those primary powers from Parliament to the National Assembly and the impact that that would have on the work of the House of Commons and Members of Parliament.
Without taking much of your Lordships’ time in repeating the arguments that I made in the debate on 26 January, it is nevertheless right to point out that even if the referendum says yes to the transfer of powers, the asymmetrical devolution system that we have in the United Kingdom means that significant areas of legislative responsibility for Wales will still rest here in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The devolution settlement in Wales is significantly different from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, policing and criminal justice are not devolved in Wales and remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and this Parliament. In addition to policing and criminal justice, huge areas of Welsh life will continue to be determined by decisions of the United Kingdom Government and this Parliament, including pensions, benefits, taxation, levels of public expenditure, macroeconomic policy, defence and foreign affairs. Our education system in Wales is very similar to that in England. Indeed, teachers pay and rations are decided on an England and Wales basis. Until the views of the Welsh people are known and new powers are transferred to the National Assembly, it is important that Wales is properly represented here in the United Kingdom Parliament.
My point is simple and is reflected in Amendment 30 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea, which complements Amendments 25ZB. Until the constitutional settlement between Wales and the United Kingdom is resolved in the referendum and its impact examined, there should be no more than a reduction of 10 per cent of Welsh Members of Parliament at the appropriate boundary review. Neither amendment would prevent the Government and Parliament from looking again at the levels of Welsh representation in the other place.
This debate is doing what your Lordships' House does best: it is giving the Government an opportunity to reflect on the amendments before us and consider their merits. Amendments 25ZB and 30 would not thwart the will of the Government and the elected House. They allow time for sober reflection and to consider the constitutional impact and the impact that any transfer of powers from Parliament to the Assembly will have on the House of Commons. They would give the Government an opportunity to achieve an outcome that they have singularly failed to achieve so far with the Bill: the opportunity to gain all-party support, certainly for this part of the Bill.
Without consensus and all-party support, no constitutional change of this magnitude will stand the test of time. I hope that the Government will consider the merits of the case being put before your Lordships this evening and agree, at the very least, to accept Amendment 25ZB.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
I support the speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I also spoke on 26 January and I do not intend to rehearse again the points that I made then and others made even better. We are not against a reduction in seats, but it should take place over a longer period of time. It is utterly disproportionate that the seats in Wales are reduced in one go by 25 per cent. That is 20 per cent of the whole of the reduction in the United Kingdom. I support my noble and learned friend.
Lord Morgan
I add my support to both amendments because of the extreme unfairness and inequity with which Wales has been treated. I begin with a reflection of what the United Kingdom is. It is a very special kind of polity. It is not a federal state. It is a union state in which different nations are brought together and, through the mediation of all political parties over 100 years, a union state in which all the nations have equality. They do not seek separatism: they seek equality. Wales in this instance is being treated most unequally.
From time to time, I reflect on a famous Liberal, whose successors do not appear to be very close to his traditions—David Lloyd George. On one occasion, Lloyd George pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of a Tory Government before 1914 who claimed to be Unionists and yet somehow implied that the Irish nationalists were lesser members. He said that they were hypocrites: they were either equal members of the union or not. It seems to me that something of the same attitude is being shown towards Wales on this occasion: that Wales can somehow be dismissed in this casual way without debate as we have heard.
In the status of Wales in a union state, Parliament is absolutely crucial. The representation of Wales in numbers is crucial. We had an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is not in his place at the moment, in which he pointed out the quality of people such as Aneurin Bevan, David Lloyd George and my noble and distinguished friend Lord Kinnock sitting behind me. That was an argument for saying that if you had a group of geniuses, Wales could be represented by 10 people or even one person. There is no limit. It is the kind of argument that the noble Lord himself applied when we were discussing the amendment about the threshold for the referendum. There seemed to be no minimum: if only 5 per cent of the electorate voted in a referendum that was absolutely fine. If 40 per cent voted that was fine. Any percentage was fine.
Wales has, as I said in a previous speech, created and won recognition for its status through its power in Parliament, not just the ability of people who have represented Wales in Parliament, but the fact that collectively they are able to make a major contribution and to fulfil the wider role that parliamentary representation can have.
There is a point about the Assembly. The Scottish Parliament has greater powers, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Touhig, than the Welsh Assembly. That has been taken into account in relation to the representation of Scotland in Westminster. We do not know what will happen in the Assembly. We are therefore just second-guessing what the result might be and the sensitive relationship between the Assembly and Parliament is therefore being put at risk. The potential way in which a lesser number of MPs and a greater number of Assembly Members might be able to collaborate is also being put at risk.
This is an unfair distortion of the political process. It is unfair on the Welsh people and on Wales as a nation. When we discussed this previously, the Minister produced an argument that I hope we will not hear from him this time. He said that because Wales is being organised by the same rules as other parts of the country, the unfairness would somehow be accepted by the people of Wales as simply a part of accepting the rules. That is rather like looking ahead to next Saturday when Wales play Scotland at Murrayfield. It is like saying that Wales will be playing by the same rules as Scotland; Wales will be the same pitch but will be playing three men short. That is therefore a fair way of looking at it.
Wales is manifestly been treated far more seriously and severely than any other part of the country. It is at variance with our history and particularly at variance with the history of the previous proponents of the views of the Liberal Democrats who are supposed to be heirs of that liberal tradition. This is treating Wales with contempt. It is putting the union at risk and is likely to cause enormous anguish and a feeling that the tradition to which all parties have contributed has been wantonly betrayed.
Lord Kinnock
Contrary to the fears expressed by some noble Lords in our previous debate, the reduction by 25 per cent of the number of Welsh Members of Parliament would not immediately lead to further feelings favouring secession. The consequence would in some ways be even more serious. By cutting the number of Welsh Members of Parliament by 25 per cent, which is hugely out of proportion with anything else that is happening in any other part of the United Kingdom, the Bill, unless the amendment is accepted, will foster the feeling among the people of Wales that they are being treated as if they are second rate. The consequent response is one of alienation—the feeling of being downgraded, of being marginalised and of being dispensable.
When those feelings are nourished, sometimes by mischievous politics but also by economic and social circumstances, they develop a life of their own. I do not seek to be one of those who foster those feelings—on the contrary; I want an optimistic, forward-looking Wales, which is what I have worked for all my life—but when a central Government say that, of all the parts of the United Kingdom, one part shall lose 25 per cent of its representation in Westminster while another will lose 5 per cent and others lose 16 per cent and 17 per cent, the message that is received in Wales is entirely negative.
A very patriotic and insightful Scottish member of the Government will comprehend the implications that will reverberate over years and throughout innumerable communities of the effect on Welsh attitudes of introducing legislation in this form. Even if we do not succeed with this amendment, I beg the Government further to reflect and listen to the words of Welsh representatives and those with honourable records in Wales from their own Benches, who will convey in clear terms the risks that are being taken with the political psychology and the patriotic feelings of the people of Wales by their being treated so arbitrarily, so disproportionately and so outrageously.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, who touched on some of the points that I made in Committee. I fully support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig.
We have heard so much in these past hours and days about fairness and the equivalency of vote, but we are dealing with one of the most unfair pieces of legislation, as far as Wales is concerned, that I could possibly conceive. The maths do not add up—we know that. There would be a reduction of 25 per cent in the number of Welsh MPs if you wanted to do it one way and one of 20 per cent if you wanted to do it another.
I was told in a meeting the other day that Wales has been “grossly overrepresented”. That might have been so. It might have been so with good reason and good cause. It might have been so since David Lloyd George’s day, since Winston Churchill’s Speaker’s Conference and, more latterly, since 1986, when Parliament stated that that nation should have no fewer than 35 parliamentary seats.
Where is the fairness in this proposed cut? Where can it be seen to be fair? As the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, said, the people of Wales will look at these most ferocious cuts and not understand them. The people of Wales will feel, despite everything else, that they have been expressly targeted and disadvantaged, and who will explain it to them? If it is to be the Government, might I ask with what credibility they will do so? I remind them that, with the greatest will in the world, the voice of the Government is not a great voice in Wales.
I therefore ask the Minister to consider very seriously what we are talking about. I mentioned in Committee the union, which I firmly believe will be threatened. I humbly ask the Government to look again at the amendment proposing 35 seats. If we were to have the result of the referendum in our hands, we might think a little differently. However, we do not. It would in any case take time to implement. Embedded in the amendments also is a process that would take a little longer to implement. I exhort the Government to look at the matter again.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, that the union is threatened, and has been for some time, by devolution. Once you start the process of devolution, it becomes a ratchet, with more and more powers then transferred, in the case of Wales, to the devolved Assembly. That is a very good reason for not supporting the amendment. The Welsh have their own Assembly, whose Members deal with many local matters. I think most people would think that the referendum that is coming up in Wales was very likely to transfer further powers to the Welsh Assembly—it would be very unlikely if Wales said, “No, we don’t want to have these extra powers”.
We have had previous debates about very large geographical areas in Scotland. Orkney and Shetland might have only 30,000-plus electors, but they have three Members of Parliament—two in Edinburgh and one in Westminster. The same principle applies to Wales. It seems to be almost overrepresented as things stand today, and I sincerely hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, I was advised by a veteran politician to begin every speech with the word “finally” because it excites expectations. Wales is clearly the big loser in this proposal. The Select Committee for Welsh Affairs, an all-party committee, came out unanimously against it. It will be seen in Wales as making us a poor relation. It represents a wholly insensitive way of looking at Wales. Far from what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, suggested—he seems to be against devolution as such—we will not put the clock back. Indeed, devolution, moving in the way that Welsh and Scottish people want it to go, is a way of avoiding separation. Of this, finally, I am sure; this insensitivity which the coalition Government have shown will indeed be a threat to our union.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is the only contribution that we have heard as yet from the Back-Benchers on my left. The case that he puts is not so much the case for union as for uniformity. He may or may not recollect the preamble to the Act of Union 1536 in relation to Wales: that the country, dominion and principality of Wales shall be incorporated, annexed and united within the greater realm of England. Some people thought that an end had been put to the Welsh nation then. How wrong they were. It seems to me that the noble Lord still takes a pre-1536 view of the situation.
Many noble Lords have stressed the central point that the changes contemplated to seats in Wales are on such a massive scale as to be injurious on account of that scale alone. It is not a question of how greater they are than other parts of the country, but how much they represent the totality of seats—in other words, a quarter of the seats of the principality of Wales. In the whole of the United Kingdom, I believe that 7.6 per cent of seats will disappear. In Wales, it will be 25 per cent. That point has already been made with great eloquence and accuracy by other Members.
In addition, in losing a quarter of its seats it follows in reason that the disruptive effect—the knock-on or domino effect—on the 30 seats that remain will be much greater, and proportionally greater, than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There can be no doubt about that. The effect generally might be that each and every one of the 30 seats essentially loses its identity.
For a short period of eight years, I had the great honour of representing the county of Cardigan in the other place. Cardigan is almost as old as Wales itself. The old community from the estuary of the Dyfi to the estuary of the Teifi with Cardigan Bay on the west and the Plynlimon range on the east was created and hammered out on the anvil of time. It has distinctive characteristics. I will not go through them now, but some of them are very noble and some perhaps not so noble. The late Lord Elwyn-Jones used to say of the times he had in assizes in Cardiganshire that on the whole a Cardiganshire jury was against crime. He said, “Thank goodness they weren’t dogmatic about it”, but be that as it may.
I have no doubt that the Welsh scene in terms of parliamentary constituencies will be changed out of all recognition. The question has been raised by many—it was raised by my noble friend Lord Rowe-Beddoe in our debate a fortnight ago—of what the perception might be in Wales of what is happening. I believe that it will be a corporate and national reaction. It will be the feeling that Wales has been pointed out for special punishment. People say that it is one of the most anti- and non-Tory countries in the world. I think I am right in saying that the Ballot Act 1872 made it no longer necessary for tenants to vote in the presence of their landlords. Since that Act, the Conservative Party has never won a majority—I do not mean an overall majority; it has never been the leading party—of seats or votes cast for it in Wales. That will perhaps be the perception of Wales in relation to the Conservative Party.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, I express my support for this amendment. The three nations within the union that will be most severely hit by this legislation are Wales in particular, Northern Ireland secondly and Scotland. I fully understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock. They reflect my own feelings in Northern Ireland. The voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are already overwhelmingly outnumbered in the other place, but they will be even more overwhelmingly outnumbered if this legislation goes through, which will cause considerable resentment and misunderstanding. I am sorry to say that I fear that it is a decision that, if taken by the majority who come from England, will damage the United Kingdom.
When we were involved in the discussions on the future of Northern Ireland, we were always told that the majority should be magnanimous to the minority. Here is an occasion where the Conservative and Liberal Democrat majority should be magnanimous to the minorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it has been evident from the good debate that we have had that this group of amendments looks at the allocation of seats to nations. Indeed, the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, could apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although until the previous contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, we focused, understandably, on Wales. From the outset, I should say that I recognise the passion with which these arguments have been put. Amendment 25ZB seeks to ensure that the allocation of seats to any part of the United Kingdom will be within 10 per cent of the current allocation. It provides for an additional allocation of seats, if the Sainte-Lague process set out in rule 9 results in an allocation that reduces the number of seats by more than 10 per cent of the current allocation.
In spite of its name, the process nevertheless recognises the fairest way to allocate seats. The British Academy report explicitly refers to it as such. It is the method that the Electoral Commission uses to allocate seats to European parliamentary regions, and the Government believe that it is the right method to use in allocating seats to parts of the United Kingdom. For those reasons, we have written it into rule 9, so that it will apply in this case.
The proposed amendment would undermine this fairness by putting an artificial floor on the process. The proposed top-up of seats would tamper with the balance struck by the Sainte-Lague method of allocating seats between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. We do not believe that it can be right to change the result derived from a system recognised, as the British Academy report described it, as,
“the fairest way of making such allocations”.
In practical terms, the amendment would create a reduction in stages for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. When the secretaries of the Boundary Commissions were giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, their clear advice was that there were advantages in making the reduction in one go. The Government consider that one reducing review would be less disruptive to constituents and Members in the other place than the continuing reductions that this amendment would introduce. I think that I have calculated properly that, under the amendment, in 2015, Wales would move from 30 to 36 and, in 2020, from 36 to 32. Only in 2025 would it would reach the level that would put it on an equal basis with other parts of the United Kingdom.
I reassure noble Lords that we are not proposing less representation for Wales than for other parts of the United Kingdom. This Bill provides that the value of a vote in Wales will be the same as the value of a vote in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, within a 10 per cent range of tolerance. I do not see how that can be doubted. It is not like putting the Welsh team on to the field at Murrayfield next Saturday with three men less, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, suggests. It would be putting them on the field with three men more, if the amendment was agreed. The provisions are fair to the voters in the constituent parts of the union. Of course, there will be a reduction in the number of constituencies in Wales, as in the rest of the UK, but overall the proportion of Welsh seats in Westminster will go from 6 per cent to 5 per cent.
The Government believe that the system proposed in the Bill, whereby seats are allocated to constituent nations in a well recognised and fair process, giving electors equal value across the United Kingdom, is the best way of bringing about fairness in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 30, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, would make any boundary change in Wales contingent on the National Assembly for Wales gaining enhanced legislative powers in the referendum held on 3 March. The amendment leaves open the possibility that a key objective of this Bill would not be achieved. Every elector's vote in elections to the other place would not have the same value if this amendment was agreed. As I said about the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, we are not proposing less representation for Wales. The value of a vote in Wales will be the same as the value of a vote in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, within a 10 per cent range of tolerance. I cannot see where the unfairness is to electors in Wales.
Lord Morgan
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but may I point out that every single argument that he has used is simply mathematical? He has considered no other aspect of Wales at all, culturally, politically or socially, and he has based that on a very selective reading of the British Academy report.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I do not believe that it is simply mathematical. It relates to the principle of equal value, and one value for one vote. That is not a mathematical concept but a matter of fairness. It is equally wrong to suggest that the provision does not have regard to the cultural and historical matters in Wales. I indicated that to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, in the previous debate. I recognise Wales as a constituent nation of our United Kingdom, but other parts of the United Kingdom have their own historical and cultural importance and ties, as indeed do parts of England as well as England as a whole. What I have not yet heard answered by anyone who has argued the case is why a vote in Swansea should carry more value than a vote in Newcastle, Coleraine or Aberdeen. Each of those other cities have their own importance and distinctiveness, and I have not yet heard an answer to why the citizens of Swansea should have a vote to the United Kingdom Parliament that is worth more than the vote of a citizen in Newcastle, Aberdeen or Coleraine.
Lord Touhig
I understand the point that the Minister is making, but how does he stand that argument up when his Government are making a deliberate exception for Orkney and Shetland? Their votes will not be equal to the rest of the votes in the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That case has been argued, and we have had specific debates on that and an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. What we have said—and I think I have said it about three times already, this afternoon and in Committee—is that the Government have put into the Bill two exceptions in places with extreme geographical situations and no ready link to anywhere on the mainland. In the rest of the United Kingdom we are seeking one vote and one value.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will tell me, if I let him intervene, why a vote in Swansea should be worth more than a vote in Aberdeen.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Because, historically, there has been a Welsh exception and no exception elsewhere. The Minister is crucifying Wales on a mathematical altar and deliberately reducing the voice of Wales in Westminster.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The simple answer to that is that there was an exception in respect of Scotland under the 1986 Act. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, mentioned that the 1986 Act said that there would be no fewer than 35 seats; the same Act said that there would be no fewer than 72 Scottish seats. Yet the last Labour Administration repealed that. I do not criticise them for that—indeed, I supported it. The number was reduced by some 18.5 per cent.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I greatly respect the integrity and ability of the noble and learned Lord, but his whole argument is based, is it not, on the question of equality? He equates equality totally with arithmetical consistency. Is not that a total fallacy?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
This is not down simply to mathematics. The principle at the core of this part of the Bill is to ensure the equality of the ballot, which all of us hold very dear indeed and which is not a purely mathematical thing. One elects one’s representative to sit in the other place and, by doing that, contributes to what the Government of this United Kingdom will be. There is a merit in that vote having equal value in all parts of our United Kingdom.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Even on his own basis—that numerical equality is the only thing that really counts—the Minister is under an illusion in supposing that, by achieving numerical equality between constituencies in Swansea and Aberdeen, he necessarily creates votes of equal value. The value of votes will also depend on registration, turnout and marginality in particular constituencies. He is pursuing a chimera in this respect, while at the same time ignoring that the basis of parliamentary representation in the United Kingdom has historically been that constituencies should be expressive of communities. Communities in Swansea and Aberdeen are, of course, of equal value, but the design of their parliamentary representation should reflect their particular characters.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, we have rehearsed the arguments before about matters such as turnout, on which, I accept, the Government cannot legislate—and turnout will have an effect—but on the morning of the election before anyone has turned out, at least what we are seeking to do gives a greater likelihood of equality before factors such as turnout come into effect. It does not say much for the quality of the value of a vote if, before you have even gone to the polls, an imbalance is already implicit in the system.
Lord Kinnock
Does the Minister accept that he can offer what we could call the Swansea-Aberdeen question in the form in which he puts it only because, without an electoral mandate, this Government are proposing to cut the number of seats in the House of Commons at one cut by 50 seats, from 650 to 600? Were it not for that, he could certainly have his equalisation of constituencies, and even a reduction in the number of Welsh seats, without inflicting on Wales or the rest of the country all the difficulties that have rightly been identified in the course of this debate.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, we have had many debates on the size of the other place, and I think that we voted on it yesterday evening. Certainly, there have been many counterproposals to 600, but 600 is the number in the Bill. We have passed that point in our deliberations. It is what the other place agreed to, and it has not been defeated or changed by any debates or votes in your Lordships' House. With 600, I have not yet heard the argument why Wales should be treated preferably to other parts of the United Kingdom. It cannot be related to devolution because, if we did that, we would have to calibrate different parts of the United Kingdom depending on the different powers that respective Parliaments had.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Will the Minister put on one side this dogmatic reliance upon simple arithmetic? Why, over decades, have our predecessors agreed that the magic figure of representation to meet the needs of Wales was 35? Is it not a recognition of the need of a small nation to have a voice? If a small nation is incorporated into a larger nation in a union, is there not a case for the voice of the smaller nation to be adequately represented, hence our predecessors’ magic figure of 35?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I would passionately defend a united kingdom, but I do not honestly believe that it is doing service to all parts of the United Kingdom if we say that some part of it needs a hand-up. I believe in each of the constituent parts of our United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—having equal status. That is why, when the other place is dealing with issues such as defence or macroeconomic policies, the votes of a person in Wales should carry equal value to those of a person in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. That is not unfairness or inequality. In fact, to do otherwise would put inequality into the system. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord said, “I have not heard why Wales should be treated differently”. Our amendment simply proposes getting to the same point as everyone else but doing it in a gradual way that does not put the union under strain. Not once did the Minister address that argument. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Variation in limit of number of holders of ministerial offices
(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 2(1) substitute—
“(1) The number of holders of offices specified in Schedule 2 to this Act (in this section referred to as Ministerial offices) entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time, whether paid or unpaid, must not exceed 95 if the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom is 650.”(3) After section 2(1) insert—
“(1A) If the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom decreases below 650, the limit on the number of holders of Ministerial offices entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons referred to in section 2(1) must be decreased by at least a proportionate amount.”(4) In subsection (2), after “subsection (1)”, insert “or subsection (1A)”.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is about the size of the Executive. The effect of this amendment would be to reduce the size of the Executive in proportion to the reduction in the number of MPs. There is no issue that it should not happen. Not surprisingly, Mr Nicholas Clegg declared before the election:
“I want to be clear: I am talking about a major reorganisation of Whitehall … As a result of our restructure the number of Ministers and government whips would be reduced from 119 to 73”.
Mr David Cameron, now the Prime Minister, in a lecture entitled “Rebuilding Trust in Politics”, sounded a similar note, promising:
“We’d want to reduce the power of the executive and increase the power of Parliament … We’ve got to give Parliament its teeth back so that people can have pride in it again—so they can look at it and say ‘yes: those MPs we elect—they’re holding the government to account on my behalf’”.
The effect of reducing the number of MPs by 50 without decreasing the number of officeholders entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is to increase the size of the government Front Bench proportionate to the number of Back-Benchers.
In Committee the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that,
“there is a very serious underlying point and that is the fear that the proportion of the Executive will increase as the number of Members of Parliament falls. I understand that there is an impatience in this Committee to know how the Government will address that fact. I am trying to be as helpful as I can but there is a limit to the helpfulness.”
You can say that again. He went on:
“We have said that we will address this issue and we will, but there is plenty of time to legislate before 2015 if we need to. The Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform told the Constitution Committee, of which my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord are members, that we will bring forward proposals during this Parliament. That is in good time as the reduction in the size of the other place will not yet have taken effect. I hope that is a sufficient reassurance”.—[Official Report, 26/1/11; col. 1058.]
No; that is, on the scale of reassurance, nil. Do we trust this Government to introduce measures to reduce the number of Ministers in the other place? No we do not. The only way to deal with that is if Parliament is prepared to do it by saying, “Let’s reduce the number of Ministers”, as Mr Nicholas Clegg, Mr David Cameron and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—the triumvirate on which the Government are based—said they would. I do not trust them to do it in 20 years. In those circumstances, I invite the House to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, my Amendment 27FA would insert a new clause after Clause 11, and after the new clause inserted by the amendment of my noble and learned friend. His new clause relates to the size of the Executive—the number of Ministers. My new clause is intimately related to that and deals with the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I propose that their number should also be reduced commensurately with any reduction in the size of the House of Commons. We are talking here of the so-called payroll vote—the payroll which consists not only of salaried Ministers and one or two unsalaried Ministers, but of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Although they are unpaid, they are always somewhat sardonically referred to as being members of the payroll vote.
In Committee, noble Lords on all sides of the House expressed their concern that the capacity of the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account would be further enfeebled if the size of the payroll vote were not to be reduced in proportion to the reduction of the size of the House of Commons. An important amendment on that matter moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, attracted a great deal of interest and support on all sides. Since then, I have learnt that the Speaker of the House of Commons himself has expressed concern that reducing the number of MPs without a commensurate reduction in the number of Ministers would skew the Westminster playing field in favour of the Government, as has the steady expansion of the payroll. Those sentiments were attributed to Mr Speaker Bercow in an article in the House Magazine.
Mr Cameron has appointed a lavish number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, considerable numbers of party vice-chairmen and special representatives. His latest appointment in that genre is a defence envoy for Gibraltar. The Member of Parliament who has been appointed to that distinguished role is someone for whom I have the highest personal regard, but the important point is that she will be bound into the patronage system and lose her capacity to express an independent point of view—certainly in terms of voting. Richard Hall, writing in the House Magazine, said that patronage sucks in more and more Back-Benchers, leaving fewer to hold the Government to account.
Lord Tyler
Given that the Government have appointed a number of Labour Members to perform particular tasks, does the noble Lord include them in the payroll vote—Mr Frank Field, for example?
Lord Howarth of Newport
I entirely deprecate this tendency and I am delighted that the noble Lord has drawn our attention to a continuation of a baleful tendency that has persisted for many years. In 1900, there were just 60 salaried government posts, of which only 33 were filled by Members of Parliament. In addition, there were nine Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The total payroll vote in 1900 was 42. One hundred years later, in the year 2000, which was during the period of the previous Labour Government, the payroll consisted of 129 out of 659 Members of Parliament. We should also bear in mind that other legislatures—for example, the legislatures in the United States of America and in France—do not have to supply the ministerial Bench. We should not forget that when considering the Government’s claims that we are overrepresented in Parliament by comparison to other nations.
As a result of the exercise of patronage by Mr Cameron, possibly advised by Mr Clegg, there are now 95 Ministers in the House of Commons and 46 Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The Constitution Unit tells me that that represents more Parliamentary Private Secretaries than there have ever been. The payroll vote is 141 out of 650 Members of Parliament. A year ago, Mr Cameron, addressing the Conservative Party asked:
“How has the mother of all Parliaments turned itself into such a pliant child?”
The answer is that it has done so on the basis of thorough, systematic and unscrupulous use of Prime Ministerial patronage. The Prime Minister is now able to answer that question he posed a year ago. Ministers in the coalition Government profess to repent themselves of this; but, like Saint Augustine, they do not intend virtue just yet. This Bill provides an opportunity for them to embark on a reformed life, but they hesitate—indeed, decline—to take that opportunity.
This is a very important constitutional issue. It is about the capacity of the House of Commons to debate with some measure of freedom, to scrutinise with some independence and to hold the Executive to account. The capacity of your Lordships' House to do that is under threat, in consequence of the coalition having a political majority in this House. The plight of both Houses of Parliament must now be a matter of intense concern. The proposed new clauses provide the opportunity to assist the House of Commons to recover its capacity to perform the function within our constitution that the people expect of it.
Lord Boateng
My Lords, patronage has oiled the wheels of the Palace of Westminster since time immemorial, and we should not inveigh too much against it, particularly those of us who have been its beneficiaries—and quite a few on all sides of the House have been. Nevertheless, these amendments are important, because they are not against patronage per se—it has its place—but they seek proportion; that is all. They seek balance in order to prevent the abuse of patronage, which we have to be vigilant in guarding against.
Those of us who take our friends and former constituents around these august halls always stop at perhaps the most important picture in the Palace of Westminster—that of Charles I being gainsaid by the then Speaker when he came to arrest the five Members. It is a wonderful picture, not least because it embodies the principle to which traditionally we have adhered ever since those times: at the end of the day, what matters above all in this place is the capacity of the Back-Bencher to make a difference and to hold the Executive to account.
We live in different times from those of Mr Speaker Lenthall, the five Members and Charles I. None of us will lose our heads as a result of how we vote. None of us will be put in the same peril as Members were in those days. Nevertheless, the exercise of the power of patronage and the threat of the withdrawal of patronage—and I am cognisant of where I stand in relation to those who sit behind me—is a real power in the hands of the Executive. We seek with these amendments to make sure that that power is exercised proportionately. As my noble friends have said, that is an important constitutional point, and this House has given considerable attention in recent weeks to the importance of upholding our constitution and its traditions. The Palace of Westminster has sent more constitutions to more countries than any other Parliament in the world. That is something of which the House should be proud, because in the main the export of constitutional democracy has been to the advantage of our world. However, I cannot think of a single instance—perhaps the Minister will help me on this—when this House has sent a constitution to a former colony or dominion and not required that at least two-thirds of those elected to power under that constitution have supported it before it comes into effect. Yet I fear, on this as on many other issues, that the strictures of the Constitution Committee have been cast to one side, the previously expressed opinions of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on the validity of the substance of the amendment have been cast to one side, and we are about to see something of profound constitutional significance railroaded through this House. That must be a matter of regret and I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will think twice before they fail to support the amendments.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the debate has been dominated by realism and cynicism: realism from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, who said that patronage had oiled the wheels of the Palace of Westminster since time immemorial, and cynicism from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who said that he did not trust the Government.
I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to the debate. I see myself as a transitory Minister but a long-time believer in parliamentary checks and balances on the Executive. There is no difference between us on that. In Committee, we on these Benches outlined two key points that are worth returning to now. First, we are not at all against the spirit of the amendment. Since the Government came to power, they have demonstrated on several occasions that they believe in dispersing power. For example, they moved swiftly in the other place to implement the Wright committee recommendations to establish the Backbench Business Committee, passing control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Benchers and enabling them to elect the chairs and members of Select Committees by taking these decisions away from the Whips, who had such a dead hand on parliamentary democracy for so many years. I am too delicate to name the guilty men at this moment.
Noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, can be reassured that the Government are not looking to extend their influence. We are not seeking to expand the so-called payroll vote as a proportion of Members in the other place. However, we are not certain that legislating for this is necessary. We have said that we will look at all legislative and non-legislative options for addressing this—and we will—but we need to look at all the ramifications. For example, it might seem an odd consequence if we were to reduce the number of Ministers in one House by increasing the number of Ministers in another—this House. If the business of government demanded a larger number of Ministers who could not sit in the other place, that would be the only alternative. Ultimately, we want to be governed by the principle that the number of Ministers must be a function of need, which is not necessarily related to the number of MPs.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is the problem not that only a fixed number of Ministers is allowed, and as a result many Ministers in this House are unpaid? Surely that is unfair given the very considerable workload that this House undertakes because the other place does not seem to get round to revising legislation. We are all very appreciative of the Front Bench, but it seems very odd that so many of them should be unpaid so that there can be more paid Ministers in the other place.
Lord McNally
That is a very valid point that could be looked at. Successive Governments have relied on the goodwill of Members of this House to take on considerable duties and responsibilities. Again, I do not rule out looking at those matters. However, now is not the time to legislate on the issue. The reduction in the size of the other place will not come into effect until the next election in 2015. It would be much better to consider these questions closer to the time, when the parliamentary landscape will be much clearer. I assure noble Lords that we are looking at this question, but it does not need to be answered—and it would be wrong to answer it—in the Bill. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for tabling Amendment 27FA. The amendment is similar in principle to that tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so I shall be brief in my response. We are sympathetic to the intention of the amendment. The Government are keen to investigate the options for addressing the issue, and keen to hear any thoughts that noble Lords may have. We recognise the noble Lord's desire to limit the payroll vote. However, even with the provisions of the amendment, were the number of parliamentary private secretaries to be increased before a general election, a post-electoral reduction would not introduce the changes that the noble Lord intends. The issue needs further consideration and we cannot commit to making these provisions in the Bill.
We do not wish to see an increase in the payroll vote as a result of the Bill, but now is not the right time to legislate on the issue. The Government believe that it would be better to consider the issues after the change in the political landscape that will be brought about by the Bill has been made clearer. As I said, the issues raised are very real ones about the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, and even in eight months, the Government have established a record that means that the realism of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, is more appropriate than the cynicism of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We will address these matters and I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has the respect of the whole House. However, with regard to the two areas to which he referred, the Government’s record over the past eight months has been dismal. The first issue that he mentioned was the Government’s respect for Select Committees, but I have today been shown a letter sent by the Constitution Select Committee of this House, agreed by every single member of that committee, complaining about the fact that the Government did not provide a reply of any sort to their comments on this Bill. The Select Committee said that now that the proceedings are almost over, any reply would be “of no value”. Therefore, the Government are wrong to claim that they have a good record on Select Committees. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport said, the Government now have the biggest payroll vote in history.
Therefore, in my view it is misplaced, first, to complain that we should admire the Government for what they have done in those respects over the past eight months, and, secondly, to ask us to trust the Government in relation to delaying the reduction in the size of the Executive proportionate to the reduction in the number of MPs. The noble Lord asked why we should do that now when it would not come into effect until 2015. However, we are legislating now to reduce the number of MPs, and therefore the obvious time to make the change is at the same time. I am completely unclear what further information is required to make a decision about this, the Government having said that they support such a reduction, and so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
“Review of reduction in number of constituencies
(1) The Minister must make arrangements—
(a) for a committee to carry out a review of the effects of the reduction in the number of constituencies brought about by section 11; (b) for the findings of the review to be published.(2) A majority of the members of the committee are to be Members of the House of Commons.
(3) Arrangements under subsection (1)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2015 and no later than 30 November 2015.
(4) In this section “the Minister” means the Lord President of the Council or the Secretary of State.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, Amendment 28A provides for a committee to carry out a review investigating the impact of the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. The arrangements for that would be required to be made between June and November 2015—in other words, directly after the next scheduled general election.
In Committee, many noble Lords asked what the rationale was behind reducing the number of seats in the other place to 600. In response, other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Lipsey, proposed setting up an independent or cross-party committee or a Speaker’s Conference, the intention being to consider the size of the other place and to use the various committees’ findings as a basis for determining the size of the House of Commons. We resisted those amendments because we were not persuaded that it was possible to consider the number of factors that some noble Lords suggested and arrive at a golden number that would balance all the considerations and interests. Ultimately, setting the size of the other place is a matter of judgment. We based our judgment on a variety of considerations, including the manifesto commitments of the Conservative Party to reduce the number of MPs. Members of the other place then decided that the reduction should be from 650 to 600.
We also resisted the amendments because the reviews, committees and inquiries would have delayed the boundary review and almost guaranteed that they could not have been completed in time for the next general election, scheduled for May 2015. The result of such a delay would be to use constituencies based on electoral data that would be up to 15 years old. That would fail to achieve a fundamental objective of the Bill: to create more up-to-date and equally sized constituencies and to provide that one vote has equal value throughout the UK. Continuing with the status quo would mean continuing with today's situation, where votes in small constituencies have almost twice the weight of those in larger constituencies.
However, we have listened to the proposals and have sought through the amendment to reflect the spirit of some of the amendments. That is the aim of our post-legislative review of the impact of the reduction of constituencies. Conducting the review under the terms of the amendment would allow practical evidence of the impact of the reduction to be taken into account. We believe that that would be of greater value than a review that could use only hypothetical evidence of what impact the proposed reductions might have. In addition, we have not specified in the Bill detailed terms of reference or factors that the committee should consider. That is to allow the committee flexibility to consider what is necessary and practical in the light of issues such as the time that it has available and the resources at its disposal. I beg to move.
Amendment 28B (to Amendment 28A)
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the government amendment inserts the creation of a committee to review whether the decrease in the number of constituencies is right. The committee has no end date. The committee comes into effect only after the introduction of the reduction of the number of Members of Parliament. Yesterday, during Report, the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described the committee as the starting point for the changes in the reduction from 650 to 600. He was right to describe it as the starting point, because most people, looking at whether to make a major change, look at the evidence first, examine it and then reach a conclusion whether or not to act. That is why it is called a starting point. That seems sensible. This Government, however, will instead make the change and then set up the starting point—which, with respect, seems absurd. That is why our amendments make the arrangement that the committee is set up first, before the change is done.
That is illustrative of the lack of care which has been taken about these changes, and it is a serious matter. This should not be dealt with in a flip or unthought-out way. A committee without an end date, without a process for choosing a chair, and with the most limited terms of reference is by no means ideal. We accept that there should be a committee. If this hardly thought-out piece of work is what is being offered, we will take it because nothing else is on offer. I would have hoped that the Government could have tried a little harder.
Lord Williamson of Horton
In this case, as in many others, timing—in particular, the timing of this review—is the principal question. That is apparent from the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I sometimes think that it would have been instructive if, when we started the whole of this great debate on the Bill, we had installed a couple of clocks on the wall of the Chamber—not clocks to keep a record of the length of our speeches but to show the number of hours and minutes remaining until a referendum on 5 May, and until the completion of the constituency and boundary changes in October 2013.
It is those periods and the Government’s fear that proposals might prejudice them which have determined the fate of many proposed amendments. In the case of this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, there have been a lot of questions about the decision to move to 600 Members of the House of Commons, the reasons for that change and a demand for some independent study of the consequences. The most comprehensive of those was the amendment moved yesterday, which was not accepted, by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. In Committee, I myself proposed an amendment that would have deferred the coming into force of Clause 11 until the end of the Boundary Commissions’ work, thus providing some time in which it would have been possible to undertake some examination of the consequences. The Government, however, made it quite clear that any infringement of the march to October 2013 is not acceptable to them. I assume that they will have the same difficulties with the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
We should therefore consider the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on its merits as a proposal for post-legislative scrutiny—which is what it is now. For myself, I think that it would be useful to have it in the Bill. It is a requirement that there should be a committee to carry out a review of the effects of the reduction and the changes to the constituencies; otherwise we may very well not get one at all, ever. Who knows what Government will be in power from 2015? It will be useful to have a review to draw some conclusions. I do not think that we should overrate its importance, but I think that it would be useful to do that.
I am aware that yesterday the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, described Amendment 28A as “almost contemptible”. I do not agree with that. However, I was extremely glad that he included the word “almost”. I think that it is reasonable to have this proposal which the Government have now put forward in the Bill, and I hope that it will pass this evening.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would respond on just one point of fact. As we know, one of the major justifications that the Government have offered for the reduction in the number of MPs is—to quote either the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister—to reduce the costs of democracy. Can the noble Lord confirm to us that among the issues reviewed in five years’ time, according to this amendment, will be an assessment of the savings to the Exchequer from the reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons, and whether that assessment will weigh those savings against the costs of increasing the size of the House of Lords?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I have noticed as this debate has gone on over the days that the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have got increasingly strident. However, I am happy to be thought of as one of the old contemptibles in this respect. I think that we are moving closer to what has been the objective all along, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, recognised—the urgency of giving the electorate the opportunity of opting for fair votes in fairly drawn constituencies. That has been the thrust of the Bill throughout. That is why we resist these amendments.
As for the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, yes, I fully imagine that a cost-benefit analysis will be included in any post-legislative review—as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, termed it—that is undertaken. By that time we will also have the full benefit of the reform of this House which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will propose in the draft Bill that he will shortly bring forward.
Lord McNally
As I have said before, many of the dynamics of this, and much of the cynicism from the Opposition, will be overtaken by the sheer dynamism of the Government’s reform programme.
If these amendments were accepted, there would be a real risk that the deliberations of the committee and the publication of its review would interfere with, and even potentially undermine, the ongoing boundary review. That could result in fighting the next general election on the basis of unequal constituencies which are based on electoral data that are 15 years out of date. The cynics might even suggest that that has been the motivation behind much of what the Labour Party has been about these last—five months, is it? Secondly, if the review were conducted on the basis of an anticipated reduction of constituencies, the advantage of taking into account what the Bill’s actual effect had been would be lost.
If we put in train the review next month it will be little more than a continuation of the debate that we have had over the past few weeks. Although I know that many noble Lords will be suffering withdrawal symptoms, I think that we should resist this proposal. We have had a very thorough discussion and debate on the reasons that the Government had in mind when they provided for this reduction of the size of the other place. Noble Lords opposite have returned many times to the Government's rationale, probing carefully at each stage of the Bill’s passage through this House.
The culmination of these debates was yesterday, when we debated the proposal for a committee of inquiry moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and the amendment that effectively retained the number of constituencies in the other place moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Noble Lords tested the opinion of the House on both those amendments and both those amendments were disagreed. Given that, I feel that it is now right that we press on with the boundary review and consider its impact when we have the hard evidence of the impact that it has had. That would have two advantages. First, it would move on from the useful debates that we have had about what might be the case, to see what actually was the case. Secondly, it would allow the aim of the Bill to be achieved, which all sides of the House have said that they are in favour of—that the next election will be based on more equally sized constituencies and the most up-to-date electoral data available. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment to my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, there is force in what the noble Lord says about the rejection yesterday of the amendments on a committee of inquiry. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“( ) Section 11 shall not come into force until legislation has been introduced into either House of Parliament limiting the number of members of the House of Lords.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I think that the import of my amendments is perfectly clear and very simple, and I appreciate that noble Lords will be thinking about the dinner break and the Statement that is to follow, so I shall try to keep my remarks relatively brief.
I raised this matter on Second Reading. I did not feel that I wanted to get involved in the Committee stage because I felt that there was something of a logjam there already. I do not know who will be replying to this debate, but I am very much looking forward to an answer to the question that I raised on Second Reading, which is how we explain reducing the size of the House of Commons—the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—in the interests of saving public expenditure and economy while at the same time greatly enlarging the size the House of Lords.
I have been in this House for rather more than 12 years and I have grown to love it. If I do not know what I think about something, I come and listen to debates in this House. The arrival of new Members is something that we all welcome. Since the general election they have been arriving at the rate of about three a week, which means that there have been 115 new appointments to this House. Many have taken their seats recently and I hope they do not think that what they have seen over the past few weeks is typical. That is because the great thing about this House is that we proceed on the basis of argument. In the last Parliament, when we were in opposition, it was impossible to defeat the Government unless we were able to persuade our Liberal friends and the Cross-Benchers, and therefore the nature of the House was focused very much on debate and argument. The changes in the composition of the House have put the Opposition in a position where it is now difficult for it to win on the basis of reasoned argument if the Government are not prepared to listen and take account of it. The changes in the size and composition of the House have had an unexpected effect in that they have changed the nature of the debate in this Chamber, and that is something which the Government need to reflect upon.
There must be a physical limit to the size of this House. I am told by the Information Office that there are now 830 Peers. I do not know what argument one can make to explain how it is that a House of Commons of 600 should be matched by a House of Lords of more than 830. It is not something that is without cost. People may say that when the hereditaries were here, the House was very much larger, but one of the criticisms made of the hereditary Peers was that not all of them came to this place. Although many were the mainstays of the House, attendance even when the House comprised 1,200 was about 400 a day, which is where it is now. So I do think that the facilities of the House—the Library, the restaurants, the Peers’ Guest Room—and our ability to conduct our business must be impaired if the number of Peers reaches a figure that is unsustainable. The question I have to ask the Minister is this: what do the Government think is the limit of the size of this House? My amendment seeks to prevent the Government implementing a reduction in the size in the House of Commons until they have set a limit on the size of the House of Lords.
Aside from the ability of the House to do its job, which it does extremely well, I am also worried about the reputation of this place. If we become a kind of parking place for people who wish to continue their career in politics and if the numbers are so excessive compared with the House of Commons, I believe that that will attract considerable public criticism. Indeed, some of the mischief makers in the media have started already. Michael Crick on “Newsnight” the other night suggested that nobody down the Corridor would lose their jobs because they were all going to be appointed to this House. That is a disaster in terms of our public perception and in terms of the Government’s overall message, which is that they wish to reduce the cost of Parliament and its impact on the taxpayer.
I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord McNally is to reply to the debate because he may well remember that last year I asked him a Question about the size of the House of Lords. I asked him if he was not concerned that if this House became so large relative to the House of Commons, that would be damaging to its reputation. He said that he was very much aware of that and he agreed with me. Since then, the House has increased in size by more than 100, which is rather like Caligula complaining about the composition of the Senate after appointing his horse to the membership as a consul. The Government, if they are serious about maintaining the reputation of the House, and if they agree that the size of this House relative to that of the House of Commons is an issue, really need to give us an indication of what is going on.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, my noble friend suggested that we should wait for the proposals on reform. I await those proposals with great interest, but I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I make the observation that those who think that an elected House would be a good idea may want to reflect on what happened to our procedures during the Committee stage of this Bill and consider what the impact might be in the future. Further, those who feel that the Opposition should perhaps have given way earlier to the views of the Commons might want to reflect on how we would all behave if we were elected and had constituents. I suggest that we would be gridlocked on legislation like this, perhaps spending a whole Session on one Bill. So I look forward to seeing what the proposals are, but I find it very difficult to understand, if one is going to make a radical change to the composition of the House, why one would expand its size so rapidly. I hope very much that that will have reached a conclusion.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I simply want to say a couple of words on this because I suggested an amendment in Committee and as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, he raised this at Second Reading. At whatever time of the night it was during Committee, I moved an amendment which, I admit, was not as good as this. I tried to find a way in which we could debate the effect of changing the size of the House of Commons and its relationship with what was happening to the size of this House.
This is an extremely important amendment. I hope that it does not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, if I tell him that I agreed with absolutely everything that he said about the relative size of the two Houses and the effect on this House if it grows and grows. Like him, I need to put in the caveat that this is in no way a criticism of the people who have been appointed to this House, many of whom have already made a tremendous contribution. However, there has to be a limit. I say this in the spirit in which the House is operating at the moment: I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, assured us on the previous amendment that the Government really were taking an overview of the three key constitutional reforms that are taking place. However, the constitutional changes are connected not just with the legislation involved in this Bill and the two Bills that are to follow. They are also affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, by the way in which the composition of this House alters, irrespective of any change in the legislation.
I conclude with my only point of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He quite rightly said that a fully elected House could easily end in gridlock. That is certainly one end of the spectrum, but there is another, which is particularly relevant to this Bill. This is no criticism whatever of the coalition, which is the first time I have been able to say that. It is that had this been a fully elected House on proportional representation, this House would have had a huge government majority. This Bill, far from being gridlocked, would then have gone through this House whipped—and how can I, as a former Chief Whip, criticise a Whip? It would have gone through quickly and almost certainly have been guillotined. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, explains the position in relation to the two Houses, while he cannot respond on the proposals that he is bringing forward on abolishing this House in its present form and replacing it with an elected House, he will have something to say on the almost absurd disparity where, just as we are moving the House of Commons down to 600, the House of Lords exceeds 800.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. The coalition appears to have invented a new-fangled constitutional doctrine: that the strength of the parties in the House of Lords ought to reflect the electoral support that they obtained at the last general election. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will indeed expound to us that doctrine. I do not know that but I would certainly be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, when he comes to his concluding remarks, would let us know what his own opinion of that doctrine is.
Baroness O'Cathain
First, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the basis of the reputation of this House, which will be eroded significantly if we carry on like this. Secondly, it is very difficult to do the proper job that those of us who work in Committees have to do here when we find ourselves without even a place to sit, if we come in late to some of the debates here in the House. It is making the working conditions very difficult indeed. Can my noble friends in the Government give us some assurance that this will be looked at seriously, because we cannot go on like this? If we have the same number of Peers coming in over the next few months as we have had over the last few, it would make the whole place intolerable. Again, I support my noble friend in saying that there is no suggestion that the people coming in here will not do the work, but it will just be impossible to get the work done.
Lord Low of Dalston
From the Cross Benches, I must say that that was an absolutely marvellous speech from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Most ingeniously, he managed to give us a wonderful warm-up for the debates that we shall no doubt have about the reform of this House. However, at this stage of the Bill, on which we have laboured for so many hours, I suggest that it might not be a good idea to go too much further into that debate. At one and the same time, he has not only done that but has also given us a wonderful valedictory on the debates we have had. He pointed to a number of factors that he rightly suggested we would do well to reflect on. The first was the great increase in the number of Members of this place, but I will not elaborate on what he said about all the disadvantages that that can entail. In a very even-handed and fair-minded way, he made some comments about what his side of the House would do well to reflect on: namely, the flexibility with which they have handled the many issues that have been raised in this debate. He also suggested that the brinkmanship, which some of us may have felt has been practised on the other side, may have also gone too far and affected the reputation and regard in which this House is held.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has therefore at a stroke pointed to a number of factors that, unless we row back from the place that we have got to, could well contaminate the debates which we are bound to have about the future shape and composition of this House. We would do very well to heed his words and, as we come to the end of these proceedings, to reflect on all the points that he has brought to our attention and perhaps row back a bit from the place that we have got to at the end of this Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I believe that this is a significant amendment and that the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made in introducing it impressed the House with its quality and seriousness. He made a number of points that obviously resonated around the Chamber. I support the amendment. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Low, I do not agree that it is not appropriate for this Bill. It is appropriate because of the underlying principles that have been advanced by the Government in relation to why the House of Commons is going to be reduced.
The anxiety that now exists throughout this House is that no regard is being shown to the good workings of the House in the context of the people who are coming here. I make it absolutely clear that every single one of the people who have come has the highest possible quality and regard. This has nothing to do with the quality of the people who have come who are all much admired and many of whom have made a real contribution to the House. It is to do with the good working of the House. If we are having a reduction in the size of the House of Commons in order to make it work well, at the same time, we should not have an increase in the size of the House of Lords that might, for the sorts of reasons referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, make its workings become more difficult. In those circumstances, we support this amendment.
It is important to look briefly at the position of the Government. They justify the reduction in the number of MPs in part by the costs they incur. Mr Nicholas Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, stated during the Second Reading in the other place that:
“We settled on 600 MPs, a relatively modest cut in House numbers of just less than 8%, because it saves money—about £12 million each year”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 39.]
I am not persuaded that cutting the size of the other place is necessarily wise; nor am I persuaded that the real way to judge whether we should cut the number of MPs is how much they cost; nor am I necessarily persuaded that that is the real motivation. But accepting all those things at face value, it is worth just considering what the cost has been of increasing the size of the House of Lords. Since the general election, the Prime Minister has appointed 116 new Peers. On the basis of an Answer given by the Chairman of Committees in 2009, each Peer costs £168,000 per year. That totals £19,656,000. According to the House Library, the Prime Minister is appointing—
Baroness O'Cathain
That figure surely includes items such as building works, security and maintenance. The fact that we are operating in this amazing building should not be added on to the cost of Peers. In any business, you would not do that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am using the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, gave. The noble Baroness may well be right that looking at those figures again, we could take other and better figures, but these are the only figures we have at the moment because I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was asked and refused to answer.
According to the House Library, the Prime Minister is appointing new Peers at a rate well in excess of any of his recent predecessors. The number of new Peers appointed in the first year by Mr Callaghan was 19; by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, it was 18; by Sir John Major it was 25; by Mr Blair it was 38; and by Mr Brown it was 16. I remind the House that the number appointed by the current Prime Minister before the end of his first year is 116. That is a remarkable trend.
Lord Trimble
Steady on. A large chunk of that was the nominations that he inherited from the outgoing Prime Minister and I think the noble and learned Lord should acknowledge that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not know what number that was. It was perhaps 30 at the most, so that would make the Prime Minister’s figure double the highest figure. I do not think that anyone, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, would dispute that the Prime Minister has appointed Peers at a much faster rate than anyone else in recent times and as we understand the effect of the coalition agreement, he has not yet finished. The coalition agreement says:
“Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last General Election”.
The report of the constitution unit of University College London of 22 November 2010 estimates that fulfilling that commitment will result in a House of 977 compared to the current 786, which makes it already the largest second chamber in the world. The coalition agreement on Lords appointments would therefore mean an additional 200 Peers. Accepting the limitations on the figures, which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has rightly pointed out—that means that there may be better figures—that would mean an additional cost of £33.5 million. Even if one took a third of that figure to deal with the capital costs, the saving of approximately £12 million each year, which is advanced as the reason for making the cull in MPs, would be dwarfed. The importance of those figures is that they perhaps undermine the justification given.
Even assuming that one put to one side the question of the unsound basis being advanced by the Deputy Prime Minister for culling the number of MPs, the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, are very widely shared around the House. If the trend goes on at the rate that has been said, putting aside the costs, the workings of this House will not improve but will get worse.
What the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is suggesting is not something that will cause delay in the introduction of the reduction of MPs in the other place. It is not in any sense an amendment that cuts to the quick of the Bill. He proposes that the changes will not come into force until legislation has been introduced—only introduced—into either House of Parliament to limit the number of Members of the House of Lords. He is not saying what the number should be and he is not saying how it should be calculated. He is simply saying to the Government, “Put your money where your mouth is and do something about it. What you do is a matter for you in detail but you must address the issue”. That is a moderate and reasoned approach that would find favour around the House. It is a very serious issue which connects in completely with this Bill and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has to say about it.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps I should put the statistics given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, into place, as I could see a few puzzled faces when he mentioned the figure of £168,000 as the cost per Peer. I thought I saw the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, take out his pocket calculator to work out why he was getting a fair amount less than £168,000 for attending this place. As newspapers love to bandy around such figures, it is better to put on the record that expenses drawn by most Peers for attending this place average out at about one fifth of that figure. Let us not get canards about—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I completely accept that and I completely accept that £168,000 could not possibly be the costs that an individual Peer draws from the House. I quite understand that, without this correction, people might well have understood that that was what I was saying. However, I was saying that obviously the cost of a Peer is most certainly not simply the expenses that he or she draws but also particular costs such as the provision of a room, heat and support which go up by reference to Peers; and that comes to a lot more. The marginal costs are obviously significantly more than the expenses drawn by individual Peers.
Lord McNally
More and more, the noble and learned Lord reassures me that he was in the MoJ and not the Treasury. I accept that.
I should also like to associate myself with the comments about the quality of newcomers. I really think that the new intake has established itself with authority and that it adds to the strength of the House. As to my own credentials for replying to this debate, before the 1997 election, I was on the Cook-Maclennan committee—the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—which discussed reform of this place. Indeed, at one stage in that committee we considered the concept of a great reform Act that would tie all the constitutional reforms into one great Bill. However, we backed off doing that due to the complexity of such a measure.
I should point out right at the beginning that, interestingly, throughout our history there has never been an interdependence in terms of reforming the two Houses. The oft-quoted 1832 Bill was a reform of the House of Commons; it did not touch the House of Lords. The 1911 Bill was a reform of the House of Lords—it did not touch the House of Commons—as was the 1999 Act introduced by the previous Labour Government. Therefore, there is no interdependence in this regard.
I put forward another thought in this interesting debate in relation to the Wakeham commission. I now freely admit that I think we missed an enormous opportunity in not accepting the Wakeham commission’s report. At that time I was a “big bang” reformer who thought that reform could be introduced quickly. I remember saying to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that I could not believe that the Labour Government, given the majority that they had, would leave Lords reform on the shelf. I also said, “Wakeham is too timid. Let us wait and they will come forward with a real ‘big bang’ reform”—little did I know. However, as I have said before, there is a lot in the Wakeham report that could be revisited when we consider Lords reform. I also believe that the Steel Bill constituted a missed opportunity on the part of the previous Government. They could have accepted it and it would have been a major step forward.
However, that is in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked how we could justify enlarging the House of Lords while reducing the size of the other place. The only frank answer to that is, “with great difficulty”. It contrasts with what we are doing in this Bill. However, as I have said, the reason for that in part is the skill with which this House has deflected reform. We are left with a situation where it is difficult, if not impossible, for Peers to resign. We have always had to face the problem that without the ability to resign, and with Peers sitting for life, the composition of this place would be adjusted when Governments changed, and that there would always be a ratcheting upwards unless we addressed more fundamental reform.
However, the illogicality—or the lack of kilter—in what is happening should not be judged as a snapshot but, as I have said before, as part of a moving picture of dynamic reform by the Government, who will bring forward measures. As I explained, the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing a cross-party committee and one of the key issues that it is discussing is the size of the reformed Chamber. We are working to publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny early this year.
I understand the variety of views that have been expressed. As one who wants a reform that works, I hope that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee drawn from both Houses will be broad based and will give all sides the chance to put forward their ideas and fears. I am not sure that I have ever accepted the fears about gridlock. Many countries in the world have two elected chambers and manage to work out relationships. I know that many books have been written about the dangers of gridlock developing in the United States and elsewhere but it is possible to work it out. I foresee developments emerging such as a business committee of both Houses which would do that. As I said, I sat on the Cunningham committee. I have always taken the view—the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I have debated this—that the relationship between the two Houses and our conventions would hold and would be tested by the two Houses, as they have always been. Therefore, these fears of doom and gloom are much exaggerated.
The Government believe that more can be done to allow Members of this House to leave permanently so that the size of the House can be reduced. The Leaders Group on Members leaving the House, chaired by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, published its report on 13 January. The Leader of the House has asked the Procedure Committee to come forward with proposals to put these recommendations into effect. I do not think that I would breach any secrets of the Procedure Committee on which my noble friend and I sit by saying that these proposals are on the agenda for our next meeting.
There is a Bill before the other place that seeks to limit the size of this House. The Parliament (Amendment) Bill was introduced by Mr Christopher Chope on 26 October 2010. Although the text of the Bill has not been published, it is clear from its Long Title that it will deal with the number of Peers. The size of this House is an important issue. But determining the size of the other place and this House do not have to be connected to one another in legislation. As I pointed out, they never have been in our history. The Bill aims to deliver concrete improvements to our electoral system as we find it today. Noble Lords will have ample—
Lord Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will give the Chope Bill time on the Floor of the House?
Lord McNally
As such an experienced parliamentarian, the noble Lord knows darn well that I could not possibly give him that guarantee—but that is exactly why he asked that question. Noble Lords will have ample opportunity to discuss this House and all other matters relating to it when the Government's proposals for reforming your Lordships' House are published. As I said, I have great interest in some of these issues and would like to see them pushed forward with a real sense of urgency. In the mean time, I urge my noble friend Lord Forsyth to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I had no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote tonight, but I have to tell my noble friend that he has not addressed the simple question I asked him. Do the Government have a view as to what the limit on the size of this House should be? I get the distinct impression in listening to his explanation of House of Lords reform and the relative sizes of the House of Commons and the House of Lords that the Government are making this up as they go along. If there is a plan for people to be able to leave the House, and if there is a plan for the size of the House, would it not be a good idea to know what the plan is before making additional appointments on such an enormous scale?
I am embarrassed by the praise being heaped upon me by Members opposite. I am in quite enough trouble already without the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, although I appreciated the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Low.
I do not enjoy moving an amendment of this kind at all. But I am concerned that not enough thought has been given, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain pointed out, to the impact on this House of these changes. I am not being overly critical, I hope, of the Deputy Prime Minister, but if he thinks that the current gulf between the voters and Parliament will be solved by making this place larger, altering the nature of the composition of this House and altering the ways in which Parliament functions, I think he is missing what is going on in the country. We are in danger of damaging in this case a well-oiled machine. There is a case for parliamentary reform, but it is more at the other end of the building than at this end.
Because of the response that I have had, it is with considerable regret that I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Banking
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat the Statement on banking delivered earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement. The near collapse of the British banking system more than two years ago still generates today deep feelings of anger and cries for retribution. I completely understand that, for the link between risk and reward that underpins our free market was completely broken. Bankers who had made the most catastrophic mistakes walked away with huge payouts and pensions. Those entrusted by us to regulate those bankers and to run our economy washed their hands. Meanwhile, the rest of the country is left paying every day for their failures. The Government have to pick up the pieces. Let me set out how we will do that.
First, we will make sure that we learn every lesson that needs to be learnt so that this never happens again. We are entirely replacing the tripartite system of regulation that was introduced in 1997 and completely failed. Next week, we will publish the detailed proposals to give the Bank of England responsibility for prudential regulation, and to create a new consumer protection and markets authority that will protect the interests of bank customers. We will then undertake pre-legislative scrutiny, as requested by this House, before introducing the Bill. I hope that it will command support from all sides.
Later this year, we will also receive the interim and final reports of the Independent Commission on Banking, which this Government established and which I asked Sir John Vickers to chair. Sir John and his fellow commissioners are asking the difficult questions that need to be asked about how we protect the British taxpayer from future bank failures so that never again is a bank too big to fail, and we look forward to receiving their recommendations.
I should make it very clear that nothing I will say today about the settlement we have reached with Britain’s banks, including references to a level playing field, in any way pre-judges the outcome of the commission. That includes both the commission’s recommendations and the Government’s response.
The second task facing this Government is to make sure that we get the maximum sustainable tax revenues from the financial sector. HM Revenue and Customs confirms that the one-off bank payroll tax introduced in the dying months of the previous Government raised £2.3 billion net but, as my predecessor as Chancellor has pointed out, it could not be repeated without massive tax avoidance. I agree with him and we will not repeat the bank payroll tax. Instead we have implemented a new and permanent bank levy, which is why yesterday I announced an increase in that levy so that it raises £2.5 billion this year. This will bring the total raised by the new bank levy to £10 billion over the Parliament, and it means that in each and every year of this Government we will raise more in bank taxes than the previous Government raised in any year.
We have also required all the major banks operating in the UK to comply in spirit and by the letter with the code of practice on taxation. This code was announced with a fanfare, but I discovered today that only two banks had signed up to it. Today all the major banks have signed.
The third task facing the new Government was to reach a new settlement with the banks so that they contribute to Britain’s economic recovery. Some prominent people in this House were predicting just 24 hours ago that my tax announcement meant that our discussions with the banks on lending were falling away. The House will be pleased to know that this prediction was wrong. This morning, the heads of the major British banks—Barclays, RBS, Lloyds and HSBC—reached a new settlement with the British Government. I want to thank John Varley, the former chief executive of Barclays, for the huge amount of time and personal commitment he has given to this project. The essentials of this new settlement are exactly as I set out last month, and I am today publishing an exchange of letters between John Varley and myself. The banks will: lend more money, especially to small business; pay more taxes; pay fewer bonuses; be more transparent about the bonuses they do pay; and make a greater contribution to our regional economy and society.
In return the Government commit to the success of a strong, resilient, stable and globally competitive financial services sector in which UK banks can compete with the best banks in the world on a level playing field and in which London is a world centre for finance. That is good for jobs and growth in our country.
I shall go through each part in detail, starting with pay and bonuses. Most of us of find the levels of pay in financial services to be completely out of kilter with what the rest of society would regard as fair or reasonable. We are determined to bring responsibility and constraint and to ensure that pay is properly taxed. Four years ago, at the height of the banking boom, the City paid £11.5 billion in banking bonuses, most of which was in cash, most of which could not be recovered when the banks collapsed, and too much of which went untaxed. The new remuneration code introduced last month and the tax avoidance measures we are taking will change that. Today I can tell the House that the four major British banks have also agreed that total bonuses for their UK-based staff will be lower than last year and lower than they would have been without today’s settlement. The independent, non-executive director who chairs each bank’s remuneration committee will have to confirm personally in writing to the FSA that their pay accord conforms with today’s commitments. For the first time, the banks have agreed to seek explicit approval from their board’s remuneration committee for the pay of the 10 highest paid employees in each of their main business units. This did not happen in banks such as RBS before the crisis, where the board was ignorant of what was going on.
We have also insisted that the banks be far more transparent about who and how they pay. From this year onwards, the four major banks have committed to disclosing the pay details not just of their executive board members, but also of the top five highest paid executives not on the board. This will mean that the salary details of at least seven executives at each bank will be published this year. That compares with five individuals in the US and Hong Kong, and only board executives in Germany and Japan. By disclosing individual pay levels, it goes further than the Walker disclosure recommendations, on which we are seeking international agreement. We will consult on whether to make it a mandatory requirement from 2012 on all large UK banks to publish the pay of both the board plus the eight highest paid senior executive officers. This would mean that Britain has the toughest and most transparent pay regime of any major financial centre in the world.
I shall also provide an update on the situation at RBS and Lloyds. In 2009, the last Government signed an agreement with RBS that explicitly said would,
“enable pay arrangements in line with the market”,
this year. Despite that constraint, which we have inherited, UKFI, the arms-length body that manages the Government’s stake in these two banks, has agreed the following: for all staff at RBS and Lloyds, the maximum up-front cash bonuses will be limited to a maximum of £2,000 this year. All executive directors, including the chief executives, have agreed to receive this year’s bonuses entirely in the form of shares. Directors will have to wait until 2013 to convert these shares into cash. As the Prime Minister made clear last month, the bonuses at RBS and Lloyds will in total be smaller than they were last year and so, crucially, will the compensation ratios. They will be backmarkers in the industry, instead of the frontrunners they once were.
Let me turn from pay to the additional support that British banks have committed to provide to the regional economy. At the end of last year, the industry pledged £1.5 billion to a new business growth fund that will invest in the kind of expanding small businesses that hold the key to Britain’s more balanced economic future. Today it commits to making an additional £1.2 billion contribution to society. The four major banks commit to an additional £1 billion for the fund and an additional £200 million to capitalise the big society bank. The business growth fund contribution will be front-loaded over the next couple of years so that more help can be given to businesses sooner. This money will be additional to the lending commitments and additional to any funding already allocated from dormant bank accounts.
Finally, at the heart of today’s settlement is a commitment from the four major banks, as well as Santander, to make much more money available for lending to small and medium-sized businesses. Last year, these banks lent £66 billion to such businesses; today, the banks commit to lend £76 billion this year—£10 billion more gross new lending to small and medium-sized businesses. This is a massive 15 per cent increase, materially higher than they had been planning to lend this year and materially higher than anyone who followed these discussions would have expected. It comes alongside a very welcome commitment from the banks to improve greatly their customer service to small businesses, with a free mentoring service, published lending principles, transparent appeals and improved access to trade finance. Overall gross new lending to all businesses, large and small, will increase from £179 billion to £190 billion. They make a commitment to lend even more if demand materialises. Absent this accord, the banks were actually expecting lending to fall this year.
In order to ensure that progress against these lending commitments can be monitored, the Bank of England has agreed to collect the relevant data and publish them on a quarterly basis. To help ensure that today’s agreement is honoured, for the first time the pay of the chief executives of each bank, as well as the relevant business area leaders, will be linked to performance against the SME lending targets. Of course, if, even then, the banks fail to live up to their promises, the Government reserve the right to return to the issue and take further measures. However, I sincerely hope that that is not necessary.
The anger at the terrible mistakes of the banking industry and the failure of those who regulated it will long remain, and rightly so. But let us, as a country, confront this hard truth: anger and retribution will not bring one percentage point of economic growth or create one single new job. The anger will remain, and we must never make the same mistakes again, but Britain needs to move from retribution to recovery. Today we get the banks to commit, with more for lending—£10 billion more for small businesses—more for our regional economies and society, £10 billion more in taxes, lower bonuses and the most transparent pay regime in the world. In return, let us build a banking industry that creates jobs for hundreds of thousands of our citizens and competes in the world. Above all, let us make sure that the economic catastrophe that befell this country can never be repeated. That is how this Government will clean up the mistakes of the past. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. What a pathetic performance—not, I hasten to add by the noble Lord, who read very well, but by the Chancellor. It was described this evening by “Channel 4 News” as lying,
“somewhere … between charade and sham”.
This was a Statement hatched in a smoke-free room in Downing Street, probably not over beer and sandwiches but maybe over smoked salmon and champagne. It sees the unwelcome resurrection of that distinguished and unlamented figure of the 1970s, Mr Solomon Binding. It is not only in their policies that this coalition Government seek to return Britain to the past; they are returning to the old methods of back-room deals masquerading as proper governance.
Before turning to the fundamental issues raised by the Statement, could the noble Lord clarify some of the aspects of the agreement, as published by the banks? The agreement states that there is,
“a commitment by the Government to the stabilisation … of the relationship between the Government and the banks”.
What exactly does that mean? Moreover, the agreement states that the Government accept,
“the right of self-determination by bank boards”.
What could that possibly mean, other than that the Government agree to let the banks do whatever they want?
Let us turn to the fundamental question: what is this for? More importantly, how will it help the recovery of the UK economy? Take first the question of bonuses. The essential problem with bonuses, apart from the sheer immorality of the quantum of money involved, has been that they embody perverse incentives. They encourage excessive risk-taking and reward mediocrity. They absorb resources that could be used to rebuild bank balance sheets and expand lending to the real economy. They attract to an essentially non-productive activity people with skills that could be deployed to perform productive tasks elsewhere in the economy—less financial engineering, more real engineering. Indeed, by their grotesque distortion of pay relativities, bank bonuses devalue the hard work of talented people in the public sector, in manufacturing and industry, and in non-financial services.
What now is to be done about bonuses, over and above the measures already being enforced by the European Union, such as the requirement that bonuses be paid predominantly in shares? In the Statement the Chancellor claimed:
“Britain has the toughest and most transparent pay regime of any major financial centre in the world”.
Will the Minister confirm that this statement is incorrect? Will he confirm that the US banks in receipt of TARP funds not only have to provide more wide-ranging disclosure of the details of remuneration, but have to do this for past years, too? This is all detailed in the recent report on bank bonuses by Mr Andrew Cuomo, Attorney-General of the state of New York. Finally, in the section of the agreement on bonuses, we find the wonderful clause 3.5, which is destined to have enduring fame as the ultimate get-out clause:
“Nothing in this statement derogates from the obligation of the banks, and their boards and remuneration committees, to manage pay policy in a way which protects and enhances the interests of their shareholders”.
In other words: “Get lost, Mr Osborne, we’ll do what we want”.
Given that nothing of any matter has been achieved on bonuses, what of the much trumpeted agreement on lending? The agreement clearly states that any increased lending—any of it—must be on commercial terms. If it is on commercial terms, would it not be done anyway? After all, that is what the banks are supposed to be for. We are told that the banks will increase their gross lending to £190 billion in 2011. However, this is a deception, for gross lending is not the relevant figure. What matters is net lending—new lending minus repayments. It is net lending that defines the amount of new spending power funding the investments of British industry. If gross lending increases but repayments increase too, the net benefit to Britain will be negligible. Will the noble Lord tell us: is there an agreed target for a net increase in lending? Will refinancing of current financial facilities be deemed to be new gross lending or not?
Then there is the commitment to a new £1.5 billion business growth fund, building up,
“over a number of years”.
Not too much too soon. That is less than 1 per cent of current gross lending and, moreover, it is not at all clear that this will be new money. There is nothing at all in the agreement about the cost of credit, other than the reference to “commercial terms”. However, ask any small business and they will tell you that it is the price of credit, rather than its availability that is often the problem. It is so easy to avoid making a loan by pricing it out of the reach of the small business borrower.
We are told in the agreement that there is to be an appeal mechanism for those denied credit, managed by “a senior independent reviewer”. Who is this reviewer to be? Who will appoint him or her? What will be the terms of reference? What sanction will there be on those banks that the reviewer deems to have failed in their commitment? Will the reviewer be able to assess all the terms of the credit, including the price? What arrangements have the Government made for the publication of the banks’ lending data to include data on credit refused, so that lending behaviour can at least be subject to some public scrutiny?
This is not the way to make economic policy. Three facts must be obvious to all. First, this crisis was inflicted on the economy by the profligate lending policies of the banks. Secondly, a sustainable recovery of the British economy requires a steady secure flow of affordable credit to British industry. Thirdly, to attain this goal there must be a fundamental reform of banking in this country. Those three propositions will be shared on all sides of this House, other than probably on the coalition Front Bench. This Statement addresses none of those three challenges. It does nothing to limit profligate lending—indeed, I suppose it tries to encourage it—it does nothing to secure a steady flow of affordable credit, and it is irrelevant to the cause of fundamental reform. Let us hope that this tawdry so-called deal will stimulate Sir John Vickers and his committee to address these issues with enhanced vigour.
The Government’s overall policy towards the banks was summed up perfectly in today’s Financial Times, which stated:
“With much noisy showmanship, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is puffing demands that are little more than cosmetic. A slight change in a levy on bank balance sheets and a commitment to greater small business lending and transparency in bankers' pay may play well politically. But they are no way to fix the banking system”.
I agree.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, recognises nothing in this Statement that moves things forward because, compared with what the previous Government did, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made enormous strides forward.
Where should I start? On the question of lending, it is precisely the gross lending target that matters. The net lending target which the previous Government imposed on a couple of banks let them off the hook. It is the significant total lending for 90 per cent of the SME market that is captured by the banks in the agreement that means we can confidently say that the banks are committed to lending 15 per cent more to the SME market this year than they did last year. Through the process of these talks, the banks have got themselves from a position of looking at flat or reducing lending this year to looking at a position of increased lending. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, seems to have confused gross and net lending. It is the gross figure for the whole market that matters. We have linked—in a way that the previous Government did not—the achievement of those lending targets with the pay of the key decision-makers in the banks. If they do not meet the targets, it will be reflected in their pay in a way that was never done before.
I turn to the business growth fund. Again, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, may be a little confused. He talked about loans from the fund, but it is an equity investment fund; it is absolutely additional funding to anything comparable that the banks have done before. As to the pace of build-up, the banks have today committed £1 billion in addition to the £1.5 billion that they had previously committed. They will front-load the commitment of that money, which will go with the pace of businesses that are growing and are in a position to receive the equity support. It is a significant fund.
The other thing that is different about the lending targets and the agreement of this Government compared with that of its predecessor is all the qualitative measures that the banks have come up with in their task force to stimulate demand and give the confidence that SME businesses need to approach the banks to ask for the money that is now clearly available. In every dimension—by moving from partial net targets to sensible gross targets that cover 90 per cent of the market; by the linkage to pay; by capturing that market; and by the qualitative measures that are in the task force—we have come up with completely different and better measures than did the previous Government.
Similarly, on the question of remuneration, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talks selectively about the backward-looking and one-off disclosure requirements that were linked to the TARP. Under normal US banking requirements, no more than five executives are likely to be caught by the remuneration disclosures. What we have done—to which the noble Lord did not draw attention—is focus the disclosures on the people who are running the main lines of business. It is not a question simply of bandings, but of focusing the disclosure on the people who matter, because they are taking the key decisions.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, appears to have spent too much time today listening to Channel 4 and reading the newspapers and not enough time concentrating on the agreement, which takes us to a completely different place from where the previous Government were. Perhaps it is regrettable that none of the noble Lords who were Ministers in the Treasury at different times under the previous Administration were here to put him right.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, the Minister repeated a very complicated and extensive Statement on what the Government propose to do. One thing is clear: they are right to get rid of the tripartite agreement that was so disastrous under the previous Government. It would seem that the Government are now adopting a very balanced view. They have a very difficult task in maximising revenue from the City while at the same time not driving people abroad who would otherwise contribute an enormous amount to the British economy.
When the previous Statement was made, I expressed concern that in the discussions that the Government were having, they confused the situation by appearing to say, “We will be soft on bonuses, provided you lend”. In the event, it is clear that the Government are being extremely tough on bonuses and have reached a separate agreement on increasing the amount of lending, which is so important.
The public anger on this matter is very much related to the expression “bonus”. In the public mind is the simple thought that any amount extra that is paid ought to reflect performance. However, what has been so clear in the banking sector is that bonuses continue to be paid on a huge scale while performance has been lamentable. Can my noble friend say to what extent the restrictions that are now being placed on bonuses will ensure that they reflect the performance of the various individuals and banks concerned? The idea of a pool of bonuses among the banks when their performance has been very poor is, I think, a serious problem. The bonuses for individuals seem to be related hardly at all to performance.
Finally, I welcome the fact that much tougher action has been taken with regard to the banks which have been rescued by the taxpayer and that the remuneration committees and, in particular, UK Financial Investments Ltd will make sure that in future these matters are looked at on a commercial basis while ensuring that bonuses are not excessive.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Higgins for pointing out that at the heart of the failure of the system and the mess that this Government have had to pick up and sort out was the failure of the tripartite system of regulation, which of course we are sweeping away. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, opposite reminds me that he very perceptively characterised it as a Rolls-Royce system when it sat on the shelf but an old banger when it got on the ground. I wish that I had his turn of phrase, but the tripartite system was indeed at the heart of it.
As to bonuses and their linkage to performance, that is absolutely at the heart of what the Government have agreed with the banks today. I think that the critical new element is the linkage between the performance of the banks on meeting SME lending targets and the pay of the chief executive and the other senior executives who are directly responsible for that line of business. Therefore, it is a crucial point. It is well made by my noble friend and it is at the heart of this agreement.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
I refer the House to the Register of Lords’ Interests, as I have an interest in this area. Does the Minister not agree that there is still too much wriggle room on the issue of transparency for the banks and that one of the big issues in this crisis was the mispricing of risk? Therefore, the more people whose salaries are known—particularly, for example, traders, although I do not know whether that is taken into consideration here—the better in terms of aligning the risk. When we talk about bankers’ bonuses and anger, the Governor of the Bank of England had it right when he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee a few years ago and said that the incentive structure in banking was distorted. Do the Government not agree that we need to tackle that issue to ensure that we restore trust and confidence in the banking sector?
Lord Sassoon
Indeed, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McFall. With regard to the Merlin agreement, the fact that the five highest-paid senior executive officers now come within the remuneration disclosure is very important. As the noble Lord will know, senior executive officers typically encompass not only those responsible for managing the key divisions but also people such as the chief financial officer and the chief risk officer, who are at the heart of controlling risk in the system. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord’s point is very well made and, as I said, the Government will consult on this issue in the forthcoming year.
Lord Newby
I think the Minister for repeating the Statement and I agree with him that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, should surely be directing his moral outrage at his colleagues—not least the noble Lord, Lord Myners. If it was so easy to make all the changes which he is castigating the Government for having failed to make, I wonder why none of those changes was implemented by his Government.
A number of measures in the Statement are welcome. I welcome the fact that cash bonuses for the part-nationalised banks are limited to such a small amount. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, may not think that £2,000 maximum cash bonus is a change, but if you ask bankers whether they think that it is a change, I suspect that they would have a different view. I also welcome the fact that the banks in their statement said that they aim to foster more demand in lending to SMEs. Given that the view of the SME community over the past two years has been that those banks have been thwarting demand and that one of the main problems has been the attitude at the top level of those banks on lending to SMEs, if senior management in those banks get their regional people to foster more demand for loans, there will be more loans. That is clearly what we want.
I want to make two points for now. First, there is a rather curious suggestion about consultation on disclosure of the highest paid earners. That is the proposition that the banks should publish the pay of the board plus eight of the highest paid senior executive officers. Eight seems to be a figure plucked out of the air. Surely it would be more sensible for the Government to consult more widely and, in particular, to consider whether disclosure should not apply to everyone in the banks who earns above a certain amount.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, the Banking Commission is the next part of the story in the operation and regulation of the banks. The Statement simply states that the Government are looking forward to receiving the recommendations of the Banking Commission. That is an extremely weak statement. It implies that the Government will receive them, say thank you very much and then leave them on the shelf. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government will be minded to accept proposals from the Banking Commission and will not simply regard this as an academic exercise?
Lord Sassoon
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Newby for expressing some of the sentiments that I wish I had expressed as succinctly as he did about the Opposition's abject failure to have gripped these issues earlier, and for pointing out what a dramatic difference a mere £2,000 in cash makes to a senior banker who, under previous arrangements, would have been expecting to receive many multiples of that.
We will consult on my noble friend's specific questions and have no presumption as to where the outcome of the consultation will be on the remuneration/disclosure issue. There is no particular magic about the number eight, but eight plus two executives on the board, which there might typically be, would total 10. That is about double the number disclosed in, say, the US or Hong Kong so we are already exceeding disclosure in the US and Hong Kong and going further to a position which might double the number of directors whose remuneration is detailed. That seems to be a good point to start a consultation, but it will be an open one.
As for the independent Banking Commission, I can absolutely confirm that the Government do not remotely regard this as an academic exercise. We appointed the commission early after we took office because we thought that it was so important to get to the bottom of the issues about the structure of the industry, “too big too fail”, and so on. When my right honourable friend says “Look forward”, he means in a positive sense look forward to what will be a serious and important piece of work.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, many commitments in Project Merlin—such as more lending to more businesses in the regions; the establishment of the equity fund promised in the Rowlands review, which was an initiative of the previous Government, as the Minister will remember; and, indeed, the support for the big society, if that comes off—if delivered on, and it is a big if, are welcome, and no one wants a vendetta against an important industry such as financial services. However, on the central question of remuneration, the Government have set themselves the important test that it should be fair and reasonable. On that basis, does the Minister agree that the Government’s proposals fail that test? Does he think that the £9 million bonus that Mr Bob Diamond will get from Barclays is fair and reasonable—yes or no? It seems to me that the Government have to be clear on these issues. That is particularly true for a Government where the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government seems to think that the problem of local authority cuts can be solved by cutting chief executives’ pay. That is populist politics being played in the public sector, but will the Government play honest politics when dealing with bankers’ bonuses?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, today is precisely about honest politics. In answer to the first part of the noble Lord’s assertions and questions, there may have been plenty of good ideas floating around—whether it was the Rowlands review, the tax code for banks, the big society bank; I could go on and on and on—but the previous Government were completely unable to deliver on any of them. My right honourable friend has today set out hard delivery on so many of these issues. As for the question of remuneration, I believe that the deal on remuneration that has been done today on behalf of the British taxpayer and the British people is a fair and reasonable one. I certainly do not know, and do not wish to know, the individual bonuses that hypothetically may go to people, and I do not intend now or in the future to comment on individual banker's bonuses. The critical thing is that we now have a fair and reasonable deal between the Government, as the representative of the taxpayers of this country, and the banks, and it is one that will be enforced.
Lord Risby
My Lords, would the Minister care to consider the impact of the failure of the tripartite regulatory system in the context of European regulatory arrangements and our credibility not only in the European context but in the domestic context as well? Does he think that after this disastrous failure of policy, a new regulatory framework is urgently needed to put stability back into the system?
Lord Sassoon
I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Risby that at the heart failure of the failure and the heart of what needs to be done is the need to get the British regulatory system back on to an even keel. That is why we came forward with ideas in opposition and consulted widely on them even then. We have also moved fast in government. Only last week the appointment of the prospective head of the new consumer body was announced. We will continue urgently to roll out our proposals on the new regulatory structure. I absolutely take my noble friend's point that in the context of the United Kingdom's standing internationally, the leadership that we have shown in getting a new structure in place has been very much understood and respected by our peer group in Europe and more widely.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is absolutely crucial that a significant portion of the new lending should go to small businesses in areas of deprivation and to areas that will suffer severely from job cuts in the public sector? As a consequence, what will he do to encourage the banks to take a more sophisticated view of credit analysis so that micro-companies and new companies, which are the best hope in those areas, have access to funding, rather than just well-established small entities?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to emphasise that the banks have at the heart of their intention on all lending to make sure that there is absolutely universal coverage across the United Kingdom. On the question of how businesses are put in a position to come forward, one of the most important elements of the banking task force is its proposals for mentors for businesses. Whether that is mentoring businesses to put them in a better position to apply for and take up loans or having a much clearer system of principles around lending and appeals processes, there is certainly a package of measures which goes to the points my noble friend rightly makes.
Lord Maples
My Lords, may I suggest to my noble friend that the central issue here is the rate of growth of credit, which is at the bottom of all banking crises? It does not matter what system of regulation is in place if it does not bring the rate of growth of credit back in line with the rate of growth of the economy. There has been a considerably faster rate of growth in credit. If that continues, we are going to have another banking crisis, whatever the system of regulation may be. Perhaps I may ask a specific question. One of the reasons the banks have made so much money over the past couple of years is that the Bank of England has been lending them money—money that it does not have, incidentally—at an interest rate of around 0.5 per cent. The banks have been able to lend that money on at 4, 5 and 6 per cent and thus have made a huge amount of money, out of which they are paying bonuses, presumably on the basis that it has been their clever management that has made all this money. Has my noble friend pointed out to them the value of this subsidy, and has he indeed calculated the value of this subsidy towards banks’ profits? We needed to help them rebuild their balance sheets, but that was why they were being lent money cheaply by the Bank of England. They are booking that as profits, attributing it to their own clever management, and paying themselves bonuses out of it.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, because of the failure of the regulatory system and because of the huge over-leveraging in the economy, it was absolutely necessary for the previous Government to take drastic measures to get the banking system back on to an even keel, and of course that did mean that a number of measures were taken by the Bank of England to pump in liquidity under special schemes which always were time-limited and will have to be repaid. That was a necessary part of the rescue of the system. As I say, those measures are time-limited. It is precisely a combination of those measures and making sure that the banks, with the capital and liquidity available to them, now focus on advancing the resources they have to the small and medium-sized enterprises of this country that is at the heart of the agreement today.
Trade and Investment
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
“Today, I turn to one of the main building blocks of economic recovery: achieving growth through international trade and by attracting inward investment. Britain makes up just 4 per cent of the global economy. Without aligning ourselves to faster growth elsewhere, we cannot hope to prosper, but to do this we have to do better than in the past. In the last few decades, we have consumed too much and exported too little. While our competitors were sending manufactures across the globe, we were building a property bubble. Now, with Germany exporting over three times as much as Britain, it is vital to turn this around.
We have also done better in attracting inward investment. We are one of the top three recipients of foreign investment in the world and are home to more European headquarters of overseas companies than all the other European countries put together. Inward investors do not just provide jobs, they also provide 30 per cent of our R&D. However, there is no room for complacency in an environment that is increasingly competitive. This White Paper therefore sets out a strategy for creating opportunities, for providing the conditions for private sector growth through trade and investment that will help to rebalance our economy, and for securing the benefits of greater trade and investment openness for the world’s poorest people.
The Government want to focus on SMEs, which are much less engaged in trade than bigger companies. They have told us that they want to take advantage of the opportunities, especially in emerging markets, but cannot always access the trade credit insurance or finance to take the risk. Since the economic crisis, they feel that it has become much harder to get cover from private credit insurers at reasonable rates, so we will create several new government schemes and extend one existing scheme. These will be launched in the coming months.
First, BIS will launch an export enterprise finance guarantee scheme that offers export finance valued up to £1 million to SMEs. Secondly, the Government’s Export Credits Guarantee Department will launch an export working capital scheme for those not eligible for the export enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which will offer export finance in amounts of over £1 million. Thirdly, the ECGD will launch a bond support scheme under which the Government will share risk with lending banks on the issue of contract bonds and, fourthly, it will launch a foreign exchange credit support scheme that will support banks offering foreign exchange hedging contracts to SMEs by sharing the credit risk. Fifthly, the ECGD will extend its short-term credit insurance scheme to cover a broader range of exports, including those of SMEs. In addition, UK Trade & Investment, or UKTI, will increase its focus on emerging markets and on helping SMEs. It will launch a new online service offering access to sales leads around the world.
All Ministers have been asked to support our trade diplomacy. I have led or supported the Prime Minister in high-level trade delegations to Brazil, India, China and Russia with business representatives promoting exports and seeking inward investment. We will do more of the same this year and beyond.
However, half our exports are to the EU, and consequently we have a strong interest in ensuring that the EU grows. That makes the completion of the EU single market even more vital. Some recent analysis suggests that trade between the UK and other EU member states could be as much as 45 per cent below potential. This is largely because of significant non-tariff trade barriers. Completion of the single market could translate into 7 per cent additional income per capita per UK household. We therefore strongly support efforts to remove barriers to trade—particularly for SMEs in fields such as e-commerce and low-carbon products and in professional and business services, where there are currently an estimated 3,000 regulatory requirements—as well as pressing for energy and agriculture liberalisation.
At the international level, completing the Doha round is one of our top-level objectives. Finishing these trade negotiations could deliver a £110 billion boost per year to the global economy. We have spent 10 years negotiating and need urgent action now to agree the key elements of the Doha deal this year, so I am glad that momentum towards a deal seems to be building again. Britain will do its utmost to get the WTO past the finishing line this year. Doha is the top priority, but we will also pursue an ambitious programme of EU free-trade agreements with our main trading partners, including India, Canada, Singapore, the South American Mercosur countries and, we hope, Japan, following the recent agreement with South Korea.
Finally, the UK is committed to assisting poor countries to take advantage of the opportunities presented by an open global trading system. International trade is one of the most important tools in the fight against poverty, and research evidence shows that countries without trade barriers have growth in per capita incomes three times faster than in other developing countries. We will therefore ensure that trade is a central theme across our bilateral aid programme and promote regional integration, notably in Africa through our Africa free-trade initiative. Helping the developing world in this way is the right thing to do, both on moral grounds and in Britain’s economic national interest.
This White Paper sets out an ambitious direction for the UK and will guide the Government’s work on trade and investment. We will implement it vigorously and actively, and I urge British business to seize the opportunities it will present. That way, we will all benefit from the vision it sets out: an open trading system and a competitive British economy, driving growth and jobs. I commend this White Paper to the House”.
My Lords, this concludes the Statement.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of the White Paper earlier today and for notice of the Statement. I welcome the broad thrust of the Statement, so far as it goes. However, may I remind him that exports alone will not deliver without a credible plan for growth across our economy? Putting new tyres on the car will not make it perform better if the engine has not been fixed. We welcome the importance given to exports and export support, and support the increased focus on the major emerging markets such as Brazil, China and India without neglecting our longer established markets. We also welcome the commitment to opposing protectionism and promoting free trade. Subject to the detail, we will support the particular measures that the Secretary of State proposes to develop export support for SMEs, although I hope the Minister can give us a timetable for their implementation. I hope he acknowledges that all those measures build on work done by the previous Labour Government.
Like the previous Government, this Government are committed to the completion of the Doha round of global free trade talks. Given the difficulties that those talks have had in the past, can the Minister tell the House what specific new initiatives he will take in the coming year to ensure that talks are completed successfully? His predecessor and my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister played an active and engaged role in trying to move the WTO towards agreement. What personal role has the Secretary of State played and what commitments has he gained from the Prime Minister about his personal involvement in securing agreement this year? Does the Minister accept that the Doha round must foster development, and will he respect and build on the work of his department and the Department for International Development under the previous Government to ensure that trade agreements support poorer developing countries? The White Paper recognises the potential benefits of completing European free trade agreements. What specific new initiatives will the Secretary of State take within the Council of Ministers to get things moving forward? Finally on Europe, what specific measures will he take to broaden and deepen the single market, as the White Paper puts it?
There appear to be some significant problems underlying the White Paper. Can the Minister assure me that the cap of £25 million does not create a gap in export support for mid-range companies? Will he confirm that the UKTI budget will be cut by 19.5 per cent in real terms? Given the expansion of activities in the White Paper, where and how will cuts be made without damaging support for exporters? What role will the Science and Innovation Network play in supporting the export strategy? Does the Minister recognise that a successful export drive depends fundamentally on having goods and services to sell and on having the companies that can provide and sell those goods and services? Does he therefore also recognise that the Government’s reckless approach to deficit reduction is damaging the prospects for growth and jobs? Can he tell the House why the strategy for growth has still not been published when he promised it in October? Does he acknowledge that the new director-general of the CBI has now joined the previous director-general in criticising the Government for having no plan for growth? Without a clear vision for the economy and a plan for growth, we will not have enough companies to export all the products to sell.
Will the Minister confirm that pharmaceuticals and the life sciences are some of the knowledge-based industries by which we can hope to earn our way in the world? Last week, Pfizer announced the closure of its Sandwich plant. Is that not a chilling message that one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies looked at its global activities and decided that it no longer needed to be in the UK and that it could afford to leave the UK outside its global research strategy? How much more investment will we lose before this complacent Government produce a credible plan for growth?
The White Paper says that the Government will invest in UK infrastructure. Will the Minister confirm that the introduction of universal broadband has been delayed by three years and that there is no credible plan for fast broadband? Does he accept that those failings make the UK a less attractive place for investment by companies that support the digital economy? Does the Minister recognise that a recent report by Experian and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts concluded that there are companies with the potential to grow and export in every region of the country and in many different sectors of the economy? Does he recognise that regional development agencies often work with UKTI to support exporters? The Secretary of State has abolished RDAs, but can the Minister explain why the White Paper contains only one passing mention of regional support for exporters and support for exporters in the regions? How will he ensure that potential exporters get the right support in every part of the country?
The White Paper praises higher education as a gross export earner of £5.3 billion, so why is the Secretary of State supporting changes to student visa policies which will do real harm to the country's seventh biggest export earner and undermine our long-term trade and development interests? The White Paper speaks of investing in science but does the Secretary of State recognise that, with science investment cut in real terms and other countries increasing their science investment, we are in danger of losing world leadership in this area?
We welcome the recent performance of manufacturing exports which have taken advantage of the competitive pound. Will the Minister confirm that the strength of the manufacturing sector has been supported by the previous Government’s support for science research and development tax credits and capital allowances and that, in the worst of a global recession, the scrappage scheme, Time to Pay and flexible tax credits all helped manufacturers to retain more of their workforce? Does he recognise that we now have a unique opportunity to use manufacturing exports to strengthen the supply chain companies and to develop the next generation of world-beating export products? What is he doing to ensure that we take advantage of that opportunity? There is much common sense and continuity in the White Paper and no need for artificial arguments about it, but the Minister must recognise that its impact will be severely limited without a credible plan for growth.
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, for those comments and for his recognition that there is a great deal of common ground on what it takes to enhance British trade performance and to ensure that we remain an attractive place for inward investment. We all recognise that British trade performance has been inadequate for a very long time. That goes back many years, if not decades. As we look for ways to achieve stable growth going forward—we are coming out of a crisis which itself followed a period of clearly unbalanced growth—we all recognise that we need to rebalance the UK's growth model. It is clear that trade and investment will have to play a key role. It is no longer possible to grow the economy by consumer demand fuelled by excessive borrowing. It is plain that government spending will not drive growth for all the reasons of which we are well aware. Therefore, it is inevitable that those sectors of the economy which contribute the rest of the demand—for example, investment and the external sector—will have to drive growth.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that manufacturing will play an important role in this. Although the trade statistics at the moment are not good and show that we have plenty of work to do, there are some encouraging signs about manufacturing’s contribution to exports. There is much work to be done. I say as someone who is relatively new in the job but who has spent some time going round the country meeting exporters—large and small, big companies and SMEs—that I am confident that there is a great deal of talent and energy raring to go. The measures that we have announced in today's White Paper, in particular the measures concerning the ECGD on the one hand and the UKTI on the other, will provide very useful support to those companies as they seek to achieve their aspirations.
The noble Lord raised a number of other questions about pharmaceuticals. There is no question but that the news about Pfizer is very sad for Sandwich. All the indications are that it is not a reflection on Britain but is part of Pfizer's global strategy and dealing with its specific issues. I assure him that Ministers and the Government are taking this issue very seriously and that my colleague—one of the Ministers in the department for business—has been down to Sandwich and is in discussion with a number of entities that are making contributions to getting the site partly used and possibly saving some jobs. It is early days yet on that but we are working hard on it.
It is clear that the Government have credible plans for growth. It is interesting to note that Sir Richard Lambert’s speech referred to a couple of things that he considered to be very important in terms of growth. One was providing better finance for SMEs, which we have done, and one was ensuring that UKTI focused more on SMEs and we have done that. Indeed, the warm welcome for today’s White Paper from the present director-general of the CBI reflects the way in which we have responded to an obvious gap in the support for SMEs.
I believe that we are making progress. As we say in the White Paper, this is absolutely a marathon and not a sprint. A weak trade performance is something that this country has lived with for a long time and it will not be cured by waving magic wands. If there were any magic wands to be waved, they would have been waved by now. However, what we have set in place now will, over time, make a serious contribution to enabling more businesses to get involved in international trade.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and congratulate him on what I suspect is his first Statement in your Lordships' House. I count eight Ministers who are present. I do not think that they are here to monitor the noble Lord’s performance; I suspect that they are here for other reasons.
I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, having listened to the banking Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, and this Statement—both of which I welcome—I am concerned about the practicalities of what is being suggested. This Statement indicated that there would be a significant increase in grant to the SME sector and the banking Statement indicated that the Project Merlin agreement would produce an increase in lending to SMEs of £66 billion to £76 billion. However, given the present culture of the banks, I worry that they will not be able to deliver that increase in lending, however much the Government aspire to that in the agreement. Those of us who have dealt with the clearing banks as SMEs know what actually happens. You go to your relationship manager—it does not matter whether it is Barclays, RBS or who owns the bank—and he or she says, “Yes, that is fine. I think we’ll recommend that loan”. Then the matter is passed to a credit committee, the members of which you have never met, and they often turn it down or come back and say, “It’s got to be 7 per cent over LIBOR”. How will the Government deal with the change in culture that will be necessary on the part of all the clearers if they are to deliver the loans and the business for the SMEs that are necessary to achieve the growth that the Minister, and indeed all of us, wish for?
My second point relates to UKTI, which is definitely within the Government’s control. In practical terms, if an SME wants to use UKTI to generate sales overseas, it gets in touch with it and someone at UKTI says, “Fine, I’ll let you know what sales expertise we can provide you with and what possibilities there are so long as you pay us £3,000”. Will the Government ensure that UKTI does not charge people for that element of expertise? That is an important point as that matter is under the Government’s control.
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I thank my noble friend Lord Razzall for his comments. I absolutely agree with his first point about the practicalities. As I said, this is a marathon, not a sprint. One of the reasons why that is true is that the production of a White Paper is not the culmination of a process but the beginning. The next step is to translate the White Paper into a large number of action steps, assign responsibilities, time lines and all the rest of it, and drive it through. One of the most important aspects of what we have announced today in the White Paper—this may seem a rather bureaucratic point but I absolutely underscore its importance—is the creation of a new interministerial committee. It is, in fact, a sub-committee of the Cabinet Economic Affairs Committee and the Prime Minister has asked me to chair it. The committee will bring the Ministers in different departments involved in this whole project together on a monthly basis to drive these actions forward. It is in that context that we will review how well it is all going and make any adjustments as we go along.
My noble friend raised some particular issues about banks. For reasons that the House will understand, I am slightly nervous about commenting on banks, but I think there will be considerable recognition in the banking community engaged in commercial banking in this country of the force of a good deal of what my noble friend said. For example, he spoke of the need to ensure that in the context of businesses where there are credit committees and so forth—and rightfully so—nevertheless there is a real relationship that we need to keep alive with individual firms, even small ones, so that there can be a real understanding of the needs of the business.
I do not think anyone in this House would want to go back to some of the culture of lending prevalent in the go-go years in the early part of the previous decade, when lending was carried on as if it was going out of style. There is a need to introduce some prudence and credit control into banks’ business if we want to ensure that banks themselves are stable and profitable. But that must be balanced with an appropriate understanding of the real needs of businesses. We need to monitor that. The Merlin agreement that was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place this afternoon includes agreements by the banks on this front, and the Government will hold the banks to account on it.
I have had the opportunity in recent weeks of meeting a number of UKTI people both here and overseas and my experience is that on the whole it is a good institution. There is always scope for improvement, certainly, and in any institution employing some 2,500 people you will find those who are average in quality and those who are very good. But coming at this from the outside, I am impressed by the dedication, hard work, commitment and enthusiasm of UKTI people in the many offices that I have had the opportunity of visiting.
On the specific question of whether to charge for its services, the Government believe that it is appropriate to charge for some UKTI services, but there are plenty of services that are not charged for. OMIS—I am afraid that I cannot remember what that stands for—is a service that is charged for, but generally the feedback is that it is widely welcomed.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I warmly welcome the well focused nature of my noble friend's announcement. I suggest that the key to growth in the long run is surely increased productivity, as the example that he gave of Germany indicates, though rather to the detriment of Germany's unfortunate partners within the eurozone. Against the background of the sad decline in productivity growth during the period of the previous Government, will he indicate the extent to which he believes the announcements that he has made this evening will stimulate further productivity growth and thus lead to the creation of more jobs and prosperity?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I thank my noble friend Lord Lang for that question because it is an important one. Productivity is indeed something of an Achilles’ heel, at least in parts of the British economy, and we need to work at that. It is a complex matter that involves the whole question of the skills base. There is one very interesting fact about exports that is extremely important to this question. Research shows that as small companies get engaged in the international markets, they not only tend to be the more efficient ones, they tend to get more efficient as they do so. In other words, an enhanced trade performance engaging more SMEs in the international markets has the effect of strengthening the backbone of the whole economy. That is an extremely important consideration that leads me to underscore again the very centrality of this trade agenda to the growth strategy for this economy for the next few years.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the question raised by my noble friend about the pharmaceutical industry, particularly the decision of Pfizer. Is the Minister aware of a Department of Health consultation on value-based pricing, which essentially changes the way in which the health service will compensate the pharmaceutical industry for the cost of drugs?
Under the current system, the PPRS, companies have great flexibility in setting a price within an overall profits cap. The advantage of that is that price sets a benchmark for at least 25 other countries and probably many more than that. That is one of the attractions for the industry of investing in the UK. When I was responsible for the pharmaceutical industry at the Department of Health, the UK had 4 per cent of global turnover in pharmaceuticals and 10 per cent of global R&D investment.
The Department of Health’s concern is to control the cost of pharmaceuticals to the NHS but, frankly, there is a much greater issue: the strength of our pharmaceutical R&D investment. I therefore urge the Minister to make sure that we are looking at pharmaceutical prices from the point of view of UK plc. I should say to the House that I have a number of health interests which are declared in the register.
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for that suggestion. I have to say that, as somebody relatively new to my role, this is not an area with which I am very familiar. However, his idea is very interesting and I am happy to undertake at least to inform myself more about the issues.
I am aware that Britain has been a very attractive site for R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. I think that we are all aware of the way in which the pharmaceutical industry is changing, with an increased tendency for the major companies to look at whether primary R&D is better contracted out to smaller operations. There is a need to think through the implications of that for the strategy of attracting and retaining inward investment in that sector.
Lord Burnett
I welcome the Statement and my noble friend’s appointment. Some of our major banks execute transfers of money rather more swiftly than others. It would be of great help to small and medium-sized businesses if money transfers took at the most, let us say, 24 hours rather than three or perhaps even more days. Will my noble friend encourage dilatory banks to speed up the system? Will he also take steps to encourage large companies to pay their suppliers without delay?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I thank my noble friend Lord Burnett for those suggestions, which are both important. I am happy to undertake that the Government will ensure in their dialogue with the banks that money transfers, particularly for small businesses—but, frankly, for anybody—are done as rapidly as is reasonable. I also agree that we should encourage large companies to ensure that they settle bills with their smaller suppliers as promptly as possible.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the White Paper. I applaud the strengthening of the ECGD scheme and the focus on improving important emerging markets such as India, China and Latin America as well as on existing trading partners. I also agree with him on the importance of the Doha round. However, I have a problem with the coalition’s measures for restricting capital allowances for manufacturing companies. If we are to try to refocus the UK economy on manufacturing, surely we need to encourage our manufacturing companies to reinvest and thus not restrict these capital allowances.
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I welcome my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s support for what is proposed in respect of the ECGD and the commitment that the Government have given on Doha. The Government are clear that they want the most competitive corporate tax environment of any of our major competitor countries. As the noble Lord is aware, the headline rate of corporation tax is coming down by one percentage point between now and 2014. When it reaches its final level in 2014, it will be the most competitive rate among the G7 economies. From the many comments received from many companies, we have also recently announced the introduction of what I know is important to them; namely, a patent box to enable them to benefit from the fruits of research and intellectual property.
Overall, the sense is that we have got the balance about right. In recent weeks, as I have visited small and larger companies in the regions of this country, I have found that tax does not register as one of the regular issues where they are looking for enhanced government support. I think that they recognise the intent and the substance of what policies have already been announced.
Baroness Hooper
I also welcome the Statement and the White Paper. Because of my interest in Latin America, I note in particular and with pleasure the references to promoting trade and investment with that continent—in particular, Brazil and Mexico with their large and vibrant economies. I note also that the White Paper states:
“Our Embassies and High Commissions overseas are uniquely placed to advise on the complex political, economic and cultural factors that affect trade and investment opportunities in other countries. They can help facilitate access for UK business, help overcome barriers to market entry, secure a better in-country operating environment”.
Will my noble friend therefore assure us that the previous policy of closing, down-sizing and placing severe budgetary constraints on our embassies and overseas missions will be reversed?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for drawing attention to a very important region, Latin America. Brazil is one of the most exciting countries in the world and I think that we all recognise that British business has not paid that part of the world as much attention as we probably should have in recent years and decades. That is now beginning to change. The Deputy Prime Minister is visiting Latin America next week, which follows a visit by the Secretary of State for Business, and I will be going later in the year. We are paying Latin America a great deal more attention.
With regard to embassies, I make two points. Embassies play a crucial role in this trade and investment strategy. The Government have defined the key priorities of the Foreign Office as being, first, commercial diplomacy and the prosperity agenda; secondly, security; and, thirdly, the consular function. The priority attached to commercial diplomacy is extremely important.
In terms of the deployment of resources, there is an intention to gradually shift resources in diplomatic terms to the faster growing countries, the emerging markets. Without being precise about the plans at this stage, I think that noble Lords can expect to see the sorts of countries that are of concern to them being beneficiaries of this process.
Lord Risby
I warmly congratulate my noble friend on his White Paper. Does he agree that the desire to learn English and to be educated in the English language produces a huge and lucrative opportunity for us, and that the work of the British Council and the arms of our universities abroad can play a critical role in trade development policy?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I thank my noble friend Lord Risby for that intervention, because I agree completely. The role of British educational institutions as export earners in their own right and, importantly, as in some sense ambassadors for what Britain is around the world cannot be prized highly enough. All indications are that those who come into contact with the British educational experience end up taking with them a warm experience of Britain for the rest of their working lives. They are all the more keen therefore to engage with us, whether as investors or as traders later in life. I think that this is extremely important.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I too am very thankful for the White Paper. I am particularly grateful at how this Government are committed to assisting poor countries to take advantage of the opportunities presented by an open global trading system. I am also grateful that when the Secretary of State for International Development addressed the General Synod of the Church of England he reaffirmed what the Prime Minister has said; namely, that deficit reduction will not be achieved on the backs of the poor and that the 0.7 per cent will be retained to be given to those poor countries.
To have more joined-up thinking between that department and the Minister’s department, will the Minister ensure that they do not simply support poorer countries? As some people have said, it is one thing to give a poor man a fish, but it would be better to teach the poor man how to fish.
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
Trade is at the heart of what it takes to achieve successful economic and social development. Yes, the Government are committed to their plans to move towards the 0.7 per cent target for official development assistance. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the other place earlier today, we will commit to ensuring that our support for trade facilitation as part of our official development programmes remains at least at the current level. There is ample evidence that helping countries to improve border controls, regulatory environments and communications of all kinds has an enormous effect on trade, which in turn has an effect on people’s ability to earn their own livelihoods and find their way into the economic and social mainstream. So we are completely in agreement with the instinct that the most reverend Primate calls for.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
“( ) directions about the discharge of their functions in relation to voters with disabilities”
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 31ZA and shall speak briefly to Amendment 31ZB, which is also in this group.
Amendment 31ZA adds to the matters on which the chief counting officer may give directions to regional counting officers or counting officers, direction about the discharge of their functions in relation to voters with disabilities. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave very welcome reassurances, setting out the Government’s clear expectations around the accessibility of the referendum for disabled people. It was most welcome that the noble Lord stated on 31 January:
“The chief counting officer will issue guidance and directions to RCOs and COs that will cover their duties in relation to accessibility and disabled voters under relevant equality and electoral legislation. These include: ensuring that polling stations meet the accessibility requirements of the DDA; ensuring that information, forms and notices relating to the voting process are available in alternative, accessible formats; making available enlarged sample versions of the ballot paper in polling stations; and providing a tactile voting device in each polling station to enable voters with visual impairments to vote”.—[Official Report, 31/1/11; col. 1292.]
I know that disabled people’s organisations outside this House have very much welcomed those reassurances, but it would help to underline the priority that should be given to meeting the needs of disabled voters to have the power to give directions on these matters on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 31ZB gives the chief counting officer power to give directions regarding the handling of complaints from persons dissatisfied with the way in which regional counting officers and counting officers have discharged their functions. This would apply not only to disabled voters but to voters generally and would in effect establish a complaints procedure that could be used by voters dissatisfied with the conduct of any aspect of the referendum. I raise this matter because it is surely right that there should be an avenue other than the costly and legalistic process of judicial review for members of the public to register complaints about the conduct of the referendum—whether that be over a failure to make reasonable adjustments to inaccessible polling stations or to provide the tactile voting template to a sight-impaired person, or because they feel that the arrangements for access made by regional counting officers and counting officers have fallen short of the standards that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, set out in Committee.
The nature of the complaints procedure would be up to the chief counting officer to decide, no doubt in consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders. Following the serious access problems experienced at the last election, it is essential that we provide a lighter-touch, non-legalistic way of addressing complaints which enables the chief counting officer to investigate and leads to the complainant receiving a report of his findings, perhaps an apology, and a statement about the steps which will be taken to ensure that the problems do not recur. None of this is a million miles away from the powers given to the Electoral Commission by Section 67 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 to determine and publish performance standards for electoral officers, to direct them to provide the commission with reports on their performance against those standards and to publish an assessment of that level of performance.
Noble Lords may say that my amendment will have no impact on future elections. I accept that. This amendment is designed purely to ensure that we can deal with complaints that arise during the referendum. That is all we can do in this Bill. However, if the Government could see their way to accepting the amendment, I think it would provide a good platform on which to build for the future. I hope very much that we might see provisions along the lines I am seeking by having this amendment enshrined in future electoral legislation as soon as there is a legislative opportunity. I beg to move.
Lord Bach
We on this side support very much the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Low. We hope that the Government will react favourably to them; he is quite right to say that the noble Lord the Leader of the House reacted sympathetically in Committee to the debate that the noble Lord introduced. We hope that the Government might be able to go a little further this evening and agree with the amendments as far as they are able to do so. We look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Archbishop of York
I, too, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I hope that when we talk about functions in relation to voters’ disabilities, we do not forget one particular category of people—that is, deaf people. It is no good getting people in if there is no British Sign Language available. I hope that that will be taken into account as well.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston. It is the mark of a civilised society that disabled people are able to participate in all its activities. It is certainly the mark of a mature and properly functioning democracy that disabled people are in no way obstructed from participating in elections.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for the way in which he introduced his amendment and referred to the discussions we had in Committee. Like him, I thought that they were constructive and useful. I also appreciate the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
The Government very much understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low. Naturally, this debate has thrown up interesting suggestions which the Government think merit further consideration. Although the amendments tabled by the noble Lord raise some valid and useful points about which we have thought very carefully, the Government resist these commendable amendments.
First and foremost, we remain unconvinced that the amendments in their current form will make any difference to the provisions already in the Bill or, indeed, to voters at the poll. The provisions already enable the chief counting officer to issue directions or guidance in relation to voters with disabilities or in relation to the policies and procedures for the handling of complaints. Therefore, these amendments add very little in terms of substance.
I know that the commission treats disability issues very seriously and is mindful of the importance of ensuring that counting officers are aware of the needs of voters with disabilities. Noble Lords will also be aware of the legal obligations that public bodies are already under to meet the needs of people with disabilities.
However, although the Government resist these amendments, we are entirely conscious that these are important issues, which may well warrant, after proper consideration and consultation, some application—in perhaps a modified form—and for that to be brought to bear on future polls. I know that the noble Lord will regret what I have to say but this is neither the appropriate time nor vehicle for these amendments. To consider carefully and consult on the implications of the kind of changes envisaged by these amendments will require more time than we have at present. However, they are a useful pointer to the issues that need to be addressed.
On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will understand and assist the Government by continuing the dialogue he has already had and withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
I thank the noble Lord for his response and all other noble Lords who spoke so warmly in support of the amendments. At this late stage of the proceedings it would be appropriate to withdraw the amendment. The noble Lord the Leader of the House certainly encouraged continuation of the dialogue and spoke positively about aspects of the amendments. He said that there were things there that merited further consideration. I can take just enough away from those words to give me some confidence that the Government will wish to return to this in the context of future electoral legislation. The noble Lord can be assured that we will certainly work strenuously with the Government to ensure that that does indeed happen. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) These steps shall include measures to ensure that all those wishing to vote and arriving at the polling station within the appointed hours are able to do so.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, this follows an amendment that I moved in Committee, which included the general duty on the Electoral Commission, as included in this amendment. It was pointed out that in doing that I had not tackled one of the main problems that beset this area, namely that the legislation seems not to allow people who arrive at a polling station on time but have not cast their vote by 10 pm to cast their vote by the expiry of those hours prescribed by the legislation. Therefore, I drafted this amendment so that they should be permitted to vote. To remind the House; in Committee there was general agreement that the chaos of May 2010, when 1,200 eager citizens were denied the right to vote—in one of the most advanced democracies in the world—must never happen again. Many moving words were spoken about that.
The Electoral Commission also inquired into that, as you would expect. In its initial report it asked for legislation. It has produced a briefing document that summarises the position in the report, saying that,
“we recommended that the Government should urgently change the law so that people who are … in the queue to enter the polling station at the close of poll are allowed to vote”.
If I could pick one phrase out of that, it would be “urgently change the law”. When I picked up the Electoral Commission’s briefing for these debates, I expected that at least it would offer me some support in trying to do that. That was perhaps naive, because in between its initial report and now, the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not in favour of legislation on this subject. I do not like to ascribe motives or to deduce cause and effect, but in the briefing the Electoral Commission went rapidly from calling for an urgent change to saying that the change proposed in my amendment would be significant, that it could be open to different interpretations, that there was insufficient time to consider its full implications, and that the Electoral Commission was unable to support it.
If the Electoral Commission did not like my amendment, given that it wanted urgent legislation it would have been perfectly sensible for it to have proposed a substitute. There is Third Reading to come, and if the matter remained not cleared up we could have debated it then. However, the Electoral Commission has not proposed a substitute. Here we have a situation, only the facts of which I describe, of a body urgently seeking a legislative amendment, an indication in the press that the DPM is against it, and a legislative vehicle to deal with the situation, and what is commission’s reaction? It shows all the urgency of a tortoise on valium.
You cannot spend long in either House without discovering that the Electoral Commission does not always command the total confidence in its activities which Members of both Houses would hope for. To some extent that is right, because the commission must not be a puppet of Members in either place. However, I detect an underlying lack of confidence that this is truly an efficient and fit-for-purpose body. The commission’s reaction in this case seems somewhat to underline that charge and suggests that it has validity.
I say nothing more than that the time has come for the Electoral Commission to up its game. I am sure that tonight Ministers will be absolutely delighted to hide behind the commission’s coat tails and will therefore not embrace the amendment or put forward a preferred amendment of their own. I should be highly delighted to be surprised. I beg to move.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, the incident referred to by the noble Lord happened in my province, Sheffield. Had that happened in Africa or India, we would have said it was scandalous that people had been in the queue for three hours but, because the voting had to stop at 10 o’clock, were told to go away. There would have been an outcry that people had been queuing for hours and were denied a vote. For me, the purpose of the law is to state public policy. This amendment is a statement that such an occurrence must not be allowed to happen again, and the regulations should make that clear. If you do not prescribe it now, the same will happen somewhere else. The African saying, “People in Britain have watches, while in Africa we have time”, might come true in the end.
Lord Bach
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lipsey raises an interesting couple of points in the amendments. They seem to us on the Front Bench to be absolutely unarguable. They are sensible and deal with the situation very well indeed. My noble friend’s points about the Electoral Commission were interesting. I should make a revelation; I found the Electoral Commission much more impressive when I was in government than I do now, sitting on the other side of the Chamber. That may reflect on me, but it also reflects to some extent on the Electoral Commission. I know that the noble and learned Lord who will respond will deny that it is anything other than pure coincidence that the Electoral Commission should change its mind so quickly on this issue and shut off any chance of my noble friend’s amendments being accepted.
Lord Tyler
Perhaps the noble Lord also saw that the Electoral Commission, in its advice to your Lordships' House, also said something that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, did not mention: namely, that while it supported the principle of the amendment, it did not feel that it was necessary as its intended outcome could be achieved through the chief counting officer's power of direction for the referendum, as provided for in the Bill. Therefore it is not entirely fair to say that the situation has changed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said.
As someone who has in the past given informal advice to the Electoral Commission, I agree that it is not beyond criticism. I am sure that some criticism of it is entirely proper, but it would be unfair to suggest that it has changed its mind in the way that was mentioned.
Lord Bach
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, as always—and the Electoral Commission must be even more grateful than I. These are sensible amendments that one would have thought the commission would have supported, given all that it said about the scandalous issues that arose in Sheffield and a few other places during the last election. It is remarkable that it seems to have changed its mind.
I will put that to one side. The Government will make up their mind about whether to do something about the scandal in May last year. My question to the noble and learned Lord is: what do the Government intend to do to make sure that this does not happen again in May this year?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for returning to this important issue in his amendment. Many of us who watched the election night coverage of the scenes at certain polling stations where people who had been queuing were not given the opportunity to vote found that it offended our sense of justice as democrats. The Government certainly take it seriously. The Electoral Commission's report found that queues built up at a number of polling stations on 6 May for various reasons. It identified 27 polling stations across the country. In most cases, it found that the common factor was inadequate planning processes and contingency arrangements that were not in place.
I assure the House that the Government are considering the Electoral Commission's report. We will consider what steps are necessary to prevent a repeat of the problems. It is important that we make sure that any changes to the rules are workable and will benefit the public. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to the briefing from the commission to Members of your Lordships' House in which it indicates that a change to the rules on the close of polls would be significant; that details of any changes would need careful consideration to ensure that they could be consistently applied and would not have any unintended consequences; that the amendment could lead to inconsistent practice; and that there has not been sufficient time to consider the implications of how the provisions of amendment might work in practice.
We previously assured the House, in a reasonably long debate on this issue in Committee, that the Bill already gives the chief counting officer the necessary powers and discretion to ensure that the referendum runs smoothly. She will have sufficient flexibility to decide what is right in particular circumstances, including the steps that have already been taken by the Electoral Commission to ensure that some of the problems that occurred on 6 May are not repeated. This will include all counting officers having effective planning processes and contingency plans. We advised the Committee that the Electoral Commission had indicated that the chief counting officer intends to issue directions to counting officers on the maximum number of electors who will be allocated to any polling station, and the associated minimum number of staff who must be present at each polling station to ensure that polling runs smoothly and that all electors who wish to vote are able to. The Government take this seriously and are considering the Electoral Commission's report.
The Archbishop of York
The amendment simply refers to taking measures to ensure that all those wishing to vote and arriving at a polling station within the appointed hours are able to do so. What could be the unintended consequences of that?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Electoral Commission and the chief counting officer ultimately have responsibility for the smooth running of the election. Certainly—this may well be because we are running relatively close to polling day—they have taken the view that making such a significant change could have unintended consequences. In their judgment, it could lead to some inconsistencies in different parts of the country, and it would be regrettable if, in trying to address one very serious problem, we opened up some other unintended and unforeseen problems. I do not think we would be thanked for that, and therefore I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
I have enjoyed the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to our proceedings and notice that tonight he has transformed himself into Sir Humphrey. That could come straight out of “Yes Minister” and we would have them rolling in the aisles.
The Electoral Commission rushed out a report within two weeks of this scandal because people were outraged. We are now nine months on from the incident and we are told that I am rushing by putting forward an amendment tonight when no alternative proposal has been put forward. It is another three months until the referendum. The Electoral Commission has plenty of time to put these things right and the Government have plenty of time to put the legislation right, which they could have started doing tonight. Therefore, I feel a sense of deep unease and disappointment. In the Government’s response I see none of the urgency that the Electoral Commission pressed for last May.
I wholly agree with, and am delighted with the contribution from, the most reverend Primate, who spoke from the experience of knowing just how bad it was for the people who were not able to vote. I cannot do anything further about it myself but I urge Ministers to push this to a resolution of some kind so that we can go out into the world in the future with a sense of pride that, when something goes wrong in our democracy, we put it right and do not let it linger, stinking, over our system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
“( ) The Chief Counting Officer must take whatever steps the officer thinks appropriate to facilitate co-operation between that officer and the officers to whom sub-paragraph (3) applies in taking any steps under sub-paragraph (1) or (2).”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I hope to deal with this amendment quickly. It is a modest and practical amendment, and it is similar in effect to the amendment moved in Committee. I see that a number of Members of the House do not have a copy of this manuscript amendment and I hope that it will be in order for me to read it out:
“The Chief Counting Officer must take whatever steps the officer thinks appropriate to facilitate co-operation between that officer and the officers to whom sub-paragraph (3) applies in taking any steps under sub-paragraph (1) or (2)”.
The nub of the amendment is a desire to ensure that there is co-operation between all those who under paragraph 10 of the schedule have a duty to “encourage participation”. The regional counting officer is given that duty under paragraph 10; so, too, is every regional counting officer, every counting officer and every registration officer. Your Lordships may remember that, when I moved a similar amendment in Committee, there was support for it all around the Chamber, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was very generous in strongly supporting it. This amendment brings back that principle, and I have tabled it following very helpful discussions with the Minister and the Bill team.
I think that I need say little more. The point is that, under the Bill as it stands, no one is given the task of co-ordinating what could be extremely dislocated efforts to encourage participation. This amendment, as I said, simply states that, among the four groups of officials involved, the chief counting officer has the role of ringmaster in trying to maximise the encouragement of participation, because everyone in this House wants this referendum to engage as many members of the public as possible. That is the size of it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the manuscript amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, comes under the part of the schedule headed “Encouraging participation”. As I understand it, he wishes to place on the chief counting officer responsibility for co-ordinating the activities of a regional counting officer, a counting officer and a registration officer in performing their duties under paragraph 10 to encourage participation. It is very hard to see how anyone could object to that. I do not know whether there are any technical objections to the terms of the noble Lord’s manuscript amendment, but it seems a sensible measure, because there is no one in the House who does not want to encourage participation.
If there are technical problems with the manuscript amendment, I imagine that they could be tidied up at Third Reading on Monday. On the basis on which it has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, we support the principle of the amendment, subject to any difficulties that we have not foreseen to which the Minister may draw our attention.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury for tabling the amendment. He gave a history of the debate in Committee. We agreed when he withdrew his amendment in Committee that we would have further discussions. I am pleased that we have been able to have those discussions. In Committee, the Government indicated that we were not persuaded that such an amendment was necessary. My noble friend and I have agreed that there was merit on both sides. Our meeting has added clarity. It has put the issue of co-operation right up front. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has emphasised the importance of co-operation, with which we all agree, in trying to ensure encouragement of participation in the referendum, usbregardless of which side of the campaign one might be on.
It is a manuscript amendment. If my noble friend is willing to give us the opportunity to reflect on its wording, I very much hope to be able to come back to him with a definitive response during Third Reading. Perhaps he would be prepared to withdraw his amendment at this stage on that basis.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I assume that there was a clear implication in that—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I hope that there was a clear implication that my noble and learned friend accepts the nub of the amendment and that it is just a question of technical jiggery-pokery.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for making two loud noises from a sedentary position, but his point was precisely that which was going through my mind about the noble and learned Lord’s response. It was not clear from what he said whether he would come back with something or whether he was just considering something. The response of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is exactly the response that I would have given.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If it helps, I very much hope to be able to come back with a very positive response to my noble friend. I just wanted to check.
Lord Strathclyde
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this is a series of government amendments to deal with the issue of postal and proxy voting. They provide that anyone who registers or is already registered to vote by post, or has a proxy vote in a combined poll, will receive a postal vote for the referendum. They include, I fear, a long string of consequential amendments. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment 34A and will then move en bloc Amendments 34B to 34AS, with the leave of the House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am slightly at a loss. Roughly, in a sentence or two, what are they doing and why are they being done at Report?
Lord Strathclyde
I spoke in one sentence, and I thought that I was the object of clarity. Why are we doing it at Report? Because we did not spot it before. No doubt in those long days in Committee the officials were busily looking at these issues again and came to the conclusion that there needed to be some clarification.
The point is that an elector who is already registered for a postal vote for one of the polls combined with the referendum, and who is therefore entitled to vote in the referendum, is now as a result of these amendments, which I hope will be agreed, also automatically registered for a postal vote for the referendum. It is about dealing with the issue of the combination of the polls at the same time. It is designed to make life easier, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree it.
Lord Strathclyde
“( ) in the case of a peer within entry 1A of the table, state that the peer’s entitlement to vote by proxy in the referendum arises by virtue of the peer’s inclusion in the list of proxies for a specified poll mentioned in that entry;”
Lord Strathclyde
“1A | A person who— (a) is entitled to vote in the referendum and in a poll that is taken together with the referendum, (b) is included in the postal voters list for that poll, and (c) is not within entry 1 in this table or entry 1 in the table insub-paragraph (3). | Address provided in the application that gave rise to the person being included in the postal voters list or, if the person is included in more than one, the address provided in the latest of those applications.” |
“1A | A person who— (a) is entitled to vote in the referendum and in a poll that is taken together with the referendum, (b) is included in the list of proxies for that poll, and (c) is not within entry 1 in this table or entry 1 or 1A in the table in sub-paragraph (2). | Proxy appointed for the purposes of that poll or, if there is more than one, the proxy appointed for the poll in respect of which the latest of the person’s applications to vote by proxy was made.” |
“( ) in relation to a principal who is included in the list of proxies by virtue of entry 1A in that table, the appointment of the person mentioned in column 3 of that entry;”
“1A | A proxy who— (a) was appointed as mentioned in column 3 of entry 1A in the table in paragraph 5(3) for a person mentioned in column 2 of that entry, and (b) is included in the proxy postal voters list for the poll in respect of which that appointment was made. | Address provided in the proxy’s application to vote by post as proxy in that poll.” |
“( ) articles 8(9), 9(6) and 12(13) of the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/236) (dates of birth and signatures of certain electors and proxies) in relation to persons entitled to vote in the referendum,( ) articles 8(9), 9(8) and 11(12) of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 (dates of birth and signatures of certain electors and proxies) in relation to persons entitled to vote in the referendum,”
“1A | A person who— (a) is entitled to vote in the referendum and in a poll that is taken together with the referendum, (b) is shown in the absent voters list for that poll as voting by post, and (c) is not within entry 1 in this table or entry 1 in the table in sub-paragraph (3). | Address provided in the application that gave rise to the person being included in the absent voters list or, if the person is included in more than one, the address provided in the latest of those applications.” |
“1A | A person who— (a) is entitled to vote in the referendum and in a poll that is taken together with the referendum, (b) is shown in the absent voters list for that poll as voting by proxy, and (c) is not within entry 1 in this table or entry 1 or 1A in the table in sub-paragraph (2). | Proxy appointed for the purposes of that poll or, if there is more than one, the proxy appointed for the poll in respect of which the latest of the person’s applications to vote by proxy was made.” |
“( ) in relation to a principal who is included in the list of proxies by virtue of entry 1A in that table, the appointment of the person mentioned in column 3 of that entry;”
“1A | A person who— (a) was appointed as mentioned in column 3 of entry 1A in the table in paragraph 16(3) for a person mentioned in column 2 of that entry, and (b) is included in the proxy postal voters list for the poll in respect of which that appointment was made. | Address provided in the proxy’s application to vote by post as proxy in that poll.” |
Lord Strathclyde
“( ) in relation to a principal who is included in the list of proxies by virtue of entry 1A in that table, the appointment of the person mentioned in column 3 of that entry;”
Lord Strathclyde
Lord Strathclyde
Lord Strathclyde
Lord Strathclyde
“Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986In Schedule 2A to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (public hearings about Boundary Commission proposals), in the definition of “qualifying party” in paragraph 9, for “votes” there is substituted “first-preference votes”.”
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this is a small and technical amendment dealing with the definition of a qualifying party. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The obvious question is, “What are these for?”, but it is just too late at night to ask that—so don’t even get up to respond.
Lord Strathclyde
I cannot resist, because I know that it would be helpful to the noble and learned Lord if I tell him that this amendment is relevant only to Northern Ireland.
Lord Strathclyde
“Schedule Section 12 Public hearings about Boundary Commission proposalsThe Schedule referred to in section 12(1A) is as follows—
“Schedule 2ASection 5Public hearings about Boundary Commission proposalsPurpose of hearings The purpose of a public hearing is to enable representations to be made about any of the proposals with which the hearing is concerned.
Number of hearings(1) In relation to any particular report under section 3(1)(a) of this Act—
(a) the Boundary Commission for England shall cause at least two and no more than five public hearings to be held in each English region;(b) the Boundary Commission for Scotland shall cause at least two and no more than five public hearings to be held in Scotland;(c) the Boundary Commission for Wales shall cause at least two and no more than five public hearings to be held in Wales;(d) the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland shall cause at least two and no more than five public hearings to be held in Northern Ireland.(2) The public hearings in an English region shall be concerned with proposals for that region, and shall between them cover the whole region.
(3) The public hearings in Scotland shall be concerned with proposals for Scotland, and shall between them cover the whole of Scotland.
(4) The public hearings in Wales shall be concerned with proposals for Wales, and shall between them cover the whole of Wales.
(5) The public hearings in Northern Ireland shall be concerned with proposals for Northern Ireland, and shall between them cover the whole of Northern Ireland.
Chair of hearings For each public hearing the Boundary Commission concerned shall appoint a person to chair the hearing.
Length of hearings A public hearing shall be completed within two days.
Procedure at hearings It is for the chair of each public hearing to determine the procedure that is to govern that hearing.
The chair shall make arrangements for a public hearing to begin with an explanation of—
(a) the proposals with which the hearing is concerned; (b) how written representations about the proposals may be made (as mentioned in section 5(1)(a), (4)(b) or (5)(c) of this Act). The chair of a public hearing must allow representations to be made—
(a) by each qualifying party; (b) by any other persons (whether individuals or organisations) considered by the chair to have an interest in any of the proposals with which the hearing is concerned.Paragraph (b) above has effect subject to sub-paragraph (3)(b) below.(2) The chair may restrict the amount of time allowed for representations—
(a) by qualifying parties, and(b) by other persons,and need not allow the same amount to each.(3) The chair may determine—
(a) the order in which representations are made, and (b) if necessary because of shortage of time, which of those wishing to make representations are not allowed to do so,in whatever way the chair decides.(1) The chair may put questions, or allow questions to be put, to a person present at the hearing.
(2) If questions are allowed to be put, the chair may regulate the manner of questioning or restrict the number of questions a person may ask.
InterpretationIn this Schedule—
“the chair” means the person appointed under paragraph 3 above;
“English region” means an electoral region specified in Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (ignoring paragraph 2(2) of that Schedule and the references to Gibraltar) as it has effect on the day referred to in rule 5(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act;
“public hearing” means a hearing under section 5(1)(b) of this Act;
“qualifying party” means a party that is registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and either—
(a) has at least one Member of the House of Commons representing a constituency in the region, or (as the case may be) the part of the United Kingdom, in which the hearing is held, or(b) received at least 10% of the votes cast in that region or part in the most recent parliamentary general election.””