House of Commons
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
1. What recent progress has been made in discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on changes to corporation tax in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on this issue yesterday and today. A Government consultation paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy will be published tomorrow. The paper will include a discussion on the potential for transferring the power to reduce corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive.
Mr Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question—given that I converted him to the Conservative party in my kitchen. The Azores judgment will conform to our plans, which will be laid out in the consultation tomorrow. We agree that the powers should be devolved to an Assembly that has entire control over its own area and that there should be no countervailing intervention from central Government.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his interest in the subject. Will the Government now consider the devolution of further tax-raising or tax-varying powers to the Northern Ireland Executive? Does he agree that the more economic levers the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland community have available to them, the more the economy will be helped to develop in a better way?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We have no plans to devolve further powers, and I would stress to her and her colleagues that we are talking about a consultation. It is not in the bag. We have lengthy discussions with other colleagues and the Treasury, and it would help if she could galvanise a campaign across Northern Ireland to work with us.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is good that it is not yet in the bag, because the Secretary of State will know that since 2000, 80 countries have cut corporation tax rates. I am sure that, among those, he has studied Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States which has an effective corporation tax rate for manufacturing of 2%. What assessment has he made of how that has helped tackle unemployment in that United States territory, and how it has helped those countries generally to recover from global recession?
Mr Paterson
I am most grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his question, but Puerto Rico is a bizarre comparison. I spent three and a half years travelling to Northern Ireland every week. Week after week I went to businesses, and week after week they said that a reduction in corporation tax would most help them.
Mr Woodward
It is clear that the Secretary of State travelled week after week, but it is also clear that he learnt nothing. Unemployment in Puerto Rico went up again last month, to 16%. The economy remains in recession for the fourth year. We need Northern Ireland to get out of recession, not to stay in it, so let us be clear—and a simple yes or no will do. Given the vital importance of infrastructure, education and skills to attracting and retaining business, will he guarantee that any consequential changes to the annual block grant and from tax revenue will not leave the Executive with an annual net loss? Yes or no?
Mr Paterson
We need no lectures on the economy from the right hon. Gentleman. He was in the bunker with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and he left us with a bill of £280,000 a minute in borrowing and £120 million a day in interest costs. We are absolutely clear that, following the example of the Republic of Ireland, we will grow the revenue.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the state of the economy in Northern Ireland.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the state of the economy in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
Northern Ireland Executive Ministers and I agree that the economy in Northern Ireland needs to be rebalanced. The Northern Ireland economy is too dependent on the public sector, for all the reasons that the House will understand. The consultation paper that we are publishing tomorrow and our ongoing work with Executive and Treasury Ministers will play a significant part in boosting the private sector and attracting investment to Northern Ireland.
Paul Uppal
In the last quarter for which figures are available, almost 22% of 16 to 24-year-olds were not involved in education, employment or training, at a cost of more than £250 million. What measures can be taken to rectify that?
Mr Paterson
The detail of training and employment policy is now in the hands of devolved Ministers, but my hon. Friend has touched on a common theme. We all have an interest in reviving the private sector in Northern Ireland and seeing those young people put into worthwhile employment.
David Rutley
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom economy, because it is this Government and this Chancellor who will get the budget deficit back under control and rebalance the economy in favour of sustainable economic growth, as highlighted recently in the OECD report?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House of that. We have a worse deficit than Ireland or Greece, yet our interest rates are considerably lower. That is thanks to the robust measures that the coalition Government have taken to enable us to recover from the wreckage left behind by the previous Government.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the very high price of petrol and diesel in Northern Ireland—the highest in the United Kingdom—is having a severe impact on the living standards of families and the viability of businesses? In his discussions with the Chancellor yesterday and today, has he raised support for a fuel duty stabiliser and other measures to tackle this crippling problem, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to raise the issue of fuel costs in Northern Ireland. He will have to be patient and wait to hear what the Chancellor has to say in a few minutes, but I can tell him that the issue has been raised at the highest level.
Mr Dodds
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. An issue that he can respond on is his talk of an enterprise zone for Northern Ireland. Will he elaborate on that and tell the House what specific measures he has in mind to bring about real change and boost competitiveness for Northern Ireland businesses? Has he looked at the specific issue of air passenger duty, which is having a detrimental effect on Northern Ireland compared with the Irish Republic?
Mr Paterson
I have been using the expression “enterprise zone” for three and a half years as a cover for looking at ways of reviving the private sector in Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am a convinced evangelist for the proposal to devolve corporation tax, to allow it to be lowered. The paper published tomorrow will also contain an amalgam of ideas from the Executive. On the issue of air passenger duty, he will also have to be a little more patient and wait for the Budget statement.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On the subject of robust policies, we have now had nine months since the emergency Budget, yet the 65% employment rate in Northern Ireland is the lowest in the UK and unemployment is rising to 8%. May I ask the evangelical Secretary of State how much further pain families in Northern Ireland must be expected to bear?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman should remember the Budgets that he voted for. I remind him that we are borrowing £280,000 a minute, and that we are spending £120 million a day on debt interest, compared with £95 million on education. That is where the money is going: we are paying off the deficit that he left behind.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
3. What assessment he has made of the likely effects of changes in air passenger duty on business travel between Northern Ireland and London.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I have had meetings with the Northern Ireland Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to discuss air passenger duty. My Treasury colleagues fully understand the issues involved. The rates that took effect last November were, of course, set and legislated for by the previous Government.
Naomi Long
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that, in addition to air passenger duty, Heathrow and Gatwick intend to levy passenger landing charges for regional flights, which will compound the problem. Will he confirm that this matter is at the top of his agenda, so that we can ensure that Northern Ireland businesses have access to the capital?
Mr Swire
Indeed; these things have been discussed at ministerial level. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here to listen to the hon. Lady’s comments. We take this matter very seriously. A lot of the issues to do with Gatwick and Heathrow are commercial matters that are more properly dealt with by BAA.[Official Report, 4 April 2011, Vol. 526, c. 12MC.]
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Will the Minister continue to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the possible dangers that a per plane duty could pose for businesses in Northern Ireland, given the geographical situation of the Province?
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is worth pointing out that 75,000 fewer people—business men and tourists—went to the island of Ireland every week last summer. It is important that we keep up the amount of people who come here. I think that his question might be better directed to Ministers after the Budget, which will follow in a few minutes, but I am sure that his comments will have been heard.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the registration of donations to political parties active in Northern Ireland.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
10. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the registration of donations to political parties active in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
An order to extend the current confidentiality arrangements for political donations in Northern Ireland was debated and approved by both Houses last month. [Interruption.] This order came into effect only from 1 March, so I have not had discussions on this issue with ministerial colleagues since then. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that the House is eagerly awaiting subsequent business, but there are far too many noisy private conversations taking place, which is very discourteous to the people of Northern Ireland.
Glyn Davies
While discussing donations to political parties in Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Minister made reference to “details of the recipient”, “the amount received” and when donations were made. Those were the reference points, so can the Minister tell us what progress has been made?
Mr Swire
Indeed, I can. I remain firmly of that view. We are not in the position that we would like, but I am advised that there are serious doubts about whether the issues that I mentioned can be addressed under existing legislation, which is very tightly drafted. I hope to make provision to bring more transparency to existing arrangements when a suitable legislative vehicle can be found.
Graham Evans
Will my hon. Friend let us know when legislation will be brought forward to make sure that donations and loans made to political parties in Northern Ireland during the prescribed period are not disclosed when the prescribed period expires?
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which was behind the introduction of the statutory instrument. I hope that this will happen at the earliest opportunity. Primary legislation will be required: we have extended the order for a further two years, so it allows us time to find a suitable legislative vehicle.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
One of the problems with regulating donations to political parties in Northern Ireland is that a loophole enables some parties to bring funds in through the Republic of Ireland—without requiring the kind of registration that applies to funds donated within the United Kingdom. Will the Government move to close this loophole so that there is a level playing field for the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland?
Mr Swire
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that any donation over £7,500 has to be declared to the Electoral Commission, as it does in the rest of the UK, so that is covered. When we move towards a Bill on the whole issue of elections in Northern Ireland, we can certainly look at that issue, along with other anomalies that we believe exist.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Ulster Conservative and Unionist New Force was the snappy title given to the alliance adopted by the Conservative party and the Ulster Unionists in last year’s general election. Will the Secretary of State share with the House how the new force in UK politics is doing these days?
Mr Swire
We remain committed to bringing national politics to Northern Ireland. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s question is within the scope of the subject of registration of political donations, but I can assure him that many people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom wish to support a Conservative party, which is why we are in government and he is not.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
5. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the aggregates levy credit scheme in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I have spoken with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on this matter. The Government remain fully committed to reinstating the aggregates levy credit scheme in Northern Ireland. The Treasury is in regular contact with the devolved Administration to co-ordinate the provision of evidence to the European Commission to support a new scheme.
Mark Durkan
I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the withdrawal of the scheme is having a severe impact on a hard-pressed sector in Northern Ireland. It is also having an impact on the public purse in its effect on capital expenditure. As well as talking to the Treasury, will the Minister consider together with the European Commission whether a recasting of the overall agricultural levy scheme could help to get Europe round its undue hang-ups?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman signed the early-day motion on this matter tabled by the leader of his party, the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who is in her place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has twice met Gordon Best, the director of the Quarry Products Association, and we are seized of the importance of this industry to Northern Ireland and of the unfairness with the Republic. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Treasury is continuing its negotiations with the Commission and that the proper place for suggesting ideas is through the Treasury to the Commission. The Government remain committed to addressing this very serious—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I represent an area that contains seven quarries which employ more than 100 people and generate a multi-million industry that exports to all parts of the globe. Will the Minister confirm that he will work industriously with the Northern Ireland Executive and, indeed, the Treasury to ensure that the exemption for the quarries continues in the near future?
Mr Swire
It is quite handy having the Chief Secretary to the Treasury here to listen to Northern Ireland questions. We should try to arrange for it to happen more often.
The Government remain very disappointed by the suspension of the aggregates levy credit scheme, but, although disappointing, it is unavoidable. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his constituents in Strangford, but this does not affect only Strangford; as I have said, the industry is important throughout Northern Ireland. We are in a difficult position, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with Treasury Ministers, as indeed are the Executive in Northern Ireland. The Finance Minister himself discussed the matter recently with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
6. What recent steps the Government has taken to increase economic competitiveness in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Government are committed to working with the Northern Ireland Executive to help boost private sector growth and investment in Northern Ireland. The consultation proposals for rebalancing the economy that the Government will publish tomorrow will send a powerful message to overseas investors. They have the potential to make Northern Ireland a beacon for foreign investment.
Mr Bain
Does the Secretary of State recognise that one of the most competitive parts of the Northern Ireland economy is the renewable energy sector? Will he convey to the Chancellor the message that the establishment of a strong green investment bank with its own borrowing powers during the current Parliament is essential to drive the green economy in Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive question. He will have been pleased to note the significant investment in Harland and Wolff’s wind apparatus by DONG Energy the other day—that is very much a theme of the coalition Government—but if he wants to hear further announcements, he will have to restrain himself and wait for the Budget statement which will be delivered in a few minutes’ time.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Northern Ireland, like North Yorkshire, is powered by small business. What message does the Secretary of State think today’s sizzling Budget for growth will send to risk-takers in Northern Ireland and beyond?
Mr Paterson
We have the Ulster fry, with which we can celebrate in numerous splendid establishments in Northern Ireland. I think the message is that we have stabilised the economy. We have moved out of the danger zone that we used to inhabit after inheriting the mess from the last Government, and today we can celebrate moving forward with a constructive Budget and specific measures to help small businesses in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I hope that the Budget sizzles but does not burn the economy.
Does the Secretary of State believe that a corporation tax change for Northern Ireland which also imposes a huge financial burden on public expenditure is likely to promote the competitiveness to which he has referred? Will he ensure that if corporation tax is devolved, it is devolved at a fair rate and in a way that does not make it—
Mr Speaker
Order. I should be grateful for a reply from the Secretary of State.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and I discussed this matter at length at Hillsborough the other night. We talked until after midnight. He knows that we are proposing a consultation. If the power is then devolved, it will be up to him and his colleagues to decide the manner in which that is done. [Interruption.] He also knows—if he looks south of the border—that the reduction in corporation tax there was recently described as a “cornerstone” of the success of the rebuilding of manufacturing in the Republic of Ireland.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Can the Secretary of State give us any advice on steps that the Northern Ireland economy might take to become more productive and efficient? [Interruption.] I am thinking especially of research and development, and in particular of European framework programme 7 for R and D funding.
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to the House to come to order. It is very difficult for Ministers even to hear the questions that they are being asked.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until tomorrow to see the details in the consultation paper, but I can tell him that we have taken up a range of measures proposed by the Executive. Let me also draw his attention to the national policy that we have imposed, which involves a huge range of measures to revive science and research in this country.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
7. When he expects plans to establish an enterprise zone for Northern Ireland to be announced.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will unveil the Government’s plans for enterprise zones later today in the Budget. Separately, tomorrow we will publish a consultation paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy and making Northern Ireland an even more attractive place to do business.
Luciana Berger
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. A recent report by the Work Foundation found that 80% of the jobs created by enterprise zones are a result of relocation, and therefore are not new jobs. How will he ensure that the enterprise zones in Northern Ireland will be different?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Lady probably does not know that I have been using the phrase “enterprise zone” as a cover-all term for a whole range of measures that would revive the private sector in Northern Ireland. I am sure she agrees that it is unsustainable for—according to one report—77.6% of the gross domestic product of the Northern Ireland economy to come from public spending. Tomorrow, we will publish a paper blending our ideas with those of the Executive on how we will rebalance the Northern Ireland economy.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that an enterprise zone across the whole of Northern Ireland is one thing, but if it is interpreted as it was in the 1980s, that will cause major displacements throughout the Province?
Mr Paterson
I repeat again what I just said: I have used the phrase “enterprise zone” over the past three and a half years as a cover-all term for referring to investing in a whole range of measures that will help revive the private sector. I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and he agrees with me that we must rebalance the economy. The Chancellor will announce the detail of specific measures on enterprise zones in a few minutes, and I hope they will be taken up by the Executive, who will have responsibility in Northern Ireland.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (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 Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. This Government continue to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland in countering the small but dangerous groups who regularly endanger the lives of police officers and the general public. That is demonstrated by the recent exceptional provision of an additional £200 million for the PSNI over the next four years to combat the threat.
Andrew Stephenson
I am sure Members of all parties will join me in condemning the small number of dissidents who continue to use violence. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate how important it is for the public to co-operate with the PSNI by passing on any information that could lead to taking terrorists off our streets?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the role that the public can play. The PSNI now has broad support across the community, and as Robert Peel said, the police are citizens in uniform. If the Antrim road bomb had gone off, members of the public would have been maimed by a device put on a bicycle.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I thank Members for their silence.
Given that during the troubles terrorist organisations murdered 102 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve, and that the Secretary of State could not attend a thanksgiving service for the reserve at St Anne’s cathedral on Sunday, will he please take this opportunity to put on record his appreciation of the outstanding courage and enormous sacrifice of the RUC reserve?
Mr Paterson
I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Lady’s comments. Unfortunately, the Minister of State and I had long-standing commitments that we could not break, but we were ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who stood in for us, and who will have visited several people there and expressed the same opinions we would have expressed had we been in his place.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of dissident activity in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
Terrorists remain active and the threat level remains at severe.
Patrick Mercer
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Garda on the outstanding co-operation over the past few weeks, particularly over the arrest of several dissidents just south of the border?
Mr Paterson
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued interest in Northern Ireland, and we value his experience. I wholeheartedly wish to place on the record our tribute to the Garda for the work that they have done. We have an unprecedented level of co-operation with them: I have met Martin Callinan, the new commissioner; I met the Taoiseach in Washington last week; and I will be visiting Dublin soon to follow up my recent discussions with the new Tanaiste and Justice Minister. We are indebted to the work that the Garda have done and by working with them we will bear down on these unrepresentative dangerous terrorists.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The dissident threat level remains high. Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced the end of the 50:50 discrimination rule in recruitment to the police. Will he join us next week in ensuring that the 10 years of discrimination against young Protestants is completely at an end, and in ensuring that young Protestants and young Catholics can join that police service to combat dissident threat levels and ensure a return to normality in Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are happy that the Police Service of Northern Ireland now represents the community and offers a career path that attracts people from all across it. The issue is now in devolved hands, which is where it should be.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/ Co-op)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private Daniel Prior, from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who died on Friday at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham having been wounded in Afghanistan on Wednesday. Tragically, Private Prior had just become a father and our deepest condolences should be with his family and friends, especially his wife and his newborn son. We must make sure that he grows up in a country where everyone honours the memory of his father and what all our armed forces stand for.
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.
John Woodcock
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and associate myself, and all on the Opposition side of the House, with his moving tribute to Private Daniel Prior.
The Prime Minister has taken the right decisions to extend the life of the Nimrods and HMS Cumberland so that our armed forces remain equipped to protect in this conflict. He knows the uncertainty we now face, so will he, in due course, extend that rethink of our defence capabilities?
The Prime Minister
Obviously we will look very closely at all the lessons we should learn from what we are engaged in: diplomatically; politically; and in terms of both foreign policy and military equipment. What I would say, though, is that the whole predication of the strategic defence and security review was that we should be able to deploy at speed anywhere in the world and have very flexible armed forces, with particular emphasis on transport and on things such as special forces. We think that we did anticipate the sorts of things we are doing now, but if there are further lessons to learn, of course we should learn them.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Q2. Our hearts go out to the people of Japan as we watch their horror unfold and see warnings today about heightened radiation in Tokyo’s water supply. It is not just earthquakes and tsunamis that can threaten the cooling systems of nuclear reactors, so does the Prime Minister agree that what has happened at Fukushima will have consequences for the new nuclear power stations proposed for the UK?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the whole House will want to join the hon. Lady in sending our condolences to people in Japan and to express our admiration for their incredible bravery and resilience in dealing with this immense crisis. Of course we must learn any lessons that need to be learned about nuclear power, which is why the head of the nuclear safety inspectorate is looking at this issue. As I have said before, the power stations we have in Britain are of a different type from those in Japan. We are not planning to build any like those, and we are not in an earthquake zone or a zone subject to tsunamis, but of course we have always got to test against all eventualities. I am sure that there is further testing we can do on nuclear power.
Japan is doing a good job in dealing with this problem and the signs from the nuclear station are a little better than they were a few days ago, but it is certainly not out of the danger zone. What we should do is make sure that we give the correct advice to all British citizens in Tokyo—that is what we have done and what we will continue to do.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Daniel Prior. He demonstrated outstanding bravery in the line of duty and our thoughts are with his wife and young son and all his family and friends.
I am sure that the whole House will also want to think of our armed forces personnel now in action in the military operation in Libya and to pay tribute to the outstanding work they are doing. Following the overwhelming vote in the House on Monday, will the Prime Minister update the House on the progress of our military operation and the actions of British forces?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his speech in that debate on Monday, which I thought was extremely powerful. To update the House on the military operations, a no-fly zone is now in place over Libya and 11 nations are contributing more than 150 aircraft. As we discussed on Monday, there has been an early and good effect as regime forces have had to retreat from Benghazi, but there is clearly great concern about what the regime is doing in Misrata. Any idea that the second ceasefire was any more meaningful than the first is, we can see, complete nonsense. We made good progress in the no-fly zone and good progress in turning some of the forces back and protecting civilians. Everything is clearly still in the early stages, however, and a lot more remains to be done.
Edward Miliband
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and for what he said about the debate on Monday. We support UN resolution 1973 to protect the people of Libya. The support of the Arab League was a key factor in securing the UN resolution. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the military contribution that Arab states will make to the operation and what conversations he has had with Arab leaders about their continued role in the enforcement of the resolution and the plan of action?
The Prime Minister
I can do that. First, the Arab League met again yesterday and reinforced its view that a no-fly zone is right and that it supports UN Security Council resolution 1973. In terms of concrete assets, I can confirm that yesterday the Qataris deployed the first of their contribution—Mirage aircraft and other support aircraft—and we will get logistic contributions from countries such as Kuwait and Jordan. I hope that further support will be forthcoming but I would like to be clear that because we had to act so quickly on Saturday it was not possible to bring forward as much Arab support as might have been welcomed by, I think, everybody in this House. There is clear support from the secretary-general of those Arab nations. I also had a meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister yesterday and I believe that support in the Arab world—not just among Arab leaders but among Arab people—for saving lives in Libya is very strong.
Edward Miliband
Let me emphasise something that the Prime Minister mentioned on Monday, which is the importance of the contribution of Arab countries to the military operation. He also said that there would be a regular and more formal process with the Arab League and others. It seems to me very important that that process takes place. Let me ask the Prime Minister one other thing about our action. Will he clarify the Government’s position on the targeting of Colonel Gaddafi? It is important that we stick to the terms of the UN resolution as we seek to maintain the coalition we have built on that resolution.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for that question and for the chance to set this out clearly to the House. All our targets must be selected to be absolutely in line with UN Security Council resolution 1973. That allows us to take “all necessary measures” to enforce a no-fly zone and to put it in place as safely as possible as well as to take action to protect civilian life. All targets should be in line with that but I do not propose to give a running commentary on targets or, frankly, to say anything beyond that.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Q3. As my right hon. Friend struggles to sort out the mess left behind by the previous rotten Labour Government, will he take this opportunity to unite the House on health matters by praising the work of Marie Curie nurses, highlighting the dangers of prostate cancer and supporting low salt week?
The Prime Minister
I yield to no one in blaming the last Government for all sorts of ills, but I think even I would probably draw the line at blaming them for the level of salt in food—[Hon. Members: “Oh, go on.”] Well, I suspect that the previous Prime Minister probably put salt in his porridge, but we will have to leave it there.
My hon. Friend mentions a very important charity, Marie Curie Cancer Care, and the work it does to help people, particularly when they are suffering often incurable conditions; it should be praised by everyone in this House. The whole point of what we want to do through our health reforms is to involve in an even greater way such great charities, which do so much to help people across our country.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
North Tyneside’s Tory, elected mayor has spoken of her intention to become the council’s chief executive under new government powers. Does the Prime Minister think that the mayor, who was elected on a political ticket under the alternative vote and has no proven professional experience for such an apolitical role, should go back to the electorate in the true spirit of localism and get their opinion on this issue?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for reminding everyone that North Tyneside has an excellent Conservative mayor who is doing a great job. It will be a matter for her and the people and the council of North Tyneside to work out what a fantastic job she can do in future.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Q4. Croydon town centre is just 15 minutes from central London by rail, but rateable values are 60% lower. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is huge potential to save public money by relocating part of the Government estate from the most expensive real estate in the country in SW1?
The Prime Minister
I just heard a suggestion from my hon. Friend that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should be based in Croydon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) makes a very good point. We have already saved £50 million by relocating Government property. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who sits in the Cabinet and does an excellent job, has saved £2.6 billion by combining quangos and public bodies, but I am sure there is more we can do, including, perhaps, in Croydon.
Edward Miliband
Will the Prime Minister explain why he proposes to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance from 80,000 care home residents?
Edward Miliband
Not for the first time, I have to tell the Prime Minister what is in his own legislation: clause 83 of the Welfare Reform Bill proposes precisely that and people do not understand why he is doing it. If he is saying that he is going to abandon the policy, then, great, let us abandon the policy.
The Prime Minister
The review of disability living allowance and the mobility component is wrapped up in the new personal independence payment. That is what is happening. To be frank, this point has been raised right across the House of Commons and is a point that we have responded to. It is a review that the right hon. Gentleman can take part in; perhaps he can say something constructive.
Edward Miliband
It is not a review, it is a proposal—a clause—in the Bill to take away the mobility component of DLA. Some 22 disabled persons organisations up and down the country are saying that the Government should abandon the policy. I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister: why does he not complete the review now and say that he is dumping the policy? He has done it before.
The Prime Minister
The first thing the right hon. Gentleman said about disability living allowance was that he wanted to support our gateway reforms, but we do not hear much about that any more. As I have said, the review of DLA is rolled into the personal independence payment. That is how we will reform the mobility component. Instead of getting so excited about it, he should congratulate the Government on listening to opinion from across the House.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might be aware that the Financial Times reported earlier this week that Gaddafi is sitting on $6.5 billion-worth of gold in his war chest. Although there is precious little to commend the current leader of Libya, gold has been the great inflation hedge throughout our history. Britain, on the other hand, sold off her gold reserves at the behest of the shadow Chancellor, when he worked as a bag carrier at the Treasury, in order to bolster the then failing euro. Which of those two is more psychologically flawed?
The Prime Minister
That was an ingenious question from my hon. Friend. I have to say that selling the gold was one of the many appalling decisions taken by the previous Government and was advised by the two people now responsible for their economic policy in opposition.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Q5. Why is poor performance still being rewarded in the banking industry with massive bonuses?
The Prime Minister
What we have done in the banking industry is make sure that it is paying a £2.5 billion banking levy, not as a one-off, but every single year during this Parliament, so under this Government, the taxes it pays will go up; the bonus levels have gone down; and the lending to small businesses—and large businesses—will increase. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that approach.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
What conclusions has the Prime Minister drawn from the statement of the secretary-general of the OECD, who recently said
“if you don’t deal with the deficit you can be assured that there will not be growth”?
The Prime Minister
The OECD was in town last week and gave the clearest possible message: if we do not deal with the deficit, we will not get any growth. That is what it said, and it is about time that the Opposition started listening to it.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q6. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that unemployment in my constituency will increase as a result of public sector cuts. What is his Government doing to expand private sector job opportunities in the area, such as supply-chain jobs from the Hitachi train-building programme? Will he ask the Business Secretary to meet local businesses and Durham county council about that, to boost jobs in Durham and the north-east?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to arrange that meeting. The point that the hon. Lady makes is absolutely right: at a time when, frankly, any Government would have to make public sector cuts, we have to make sure that the private sector grows. That is why we have the regional growth fund, which is putting money and leveraging new jobs into the north-east. That is why we will introduce things such as enterprise zones, and that is why, if she sits and waits patiently, she will hear in the Chancellor’s Budget a whole series of measures to fire up the private sector and make sure that we get growth right across our country.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
After fuel duty, council tax is the most despised tax in the country, and under the Labour Government it increased mercilessly, year on year. Will the Prime Minister tell me how many councils, like Bedford borough council, have taken advantage of the offer made by the Chancellor in last year’s Budget and frozen or reduced council tax?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth while noting that we now know that every single council in the country has agreed to take part in the Government’s council tax freeze. I would have thought that would be welcomed across the House of Commons, because people do face a difficult situation with the cost of living. We have taken action on council tax; we are lifting people out of income tax; we are uprating the pension in line with earnings, instead of prices; and I hope that the Chancellor will have a few more things to say in a minute or two.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Q7. The Prime Minister knows of my passion for the no campaign on the alternative vote, and I know that he will be working day and night on that subject. However, I have another passion: legal aid. What will his Government do to protect those who are debarred from legal aid, and to get rid of all the abuse in the legal aid system at present?
The Prime Minister
Of course, this is a devolved issue for Scotland, but what we have done elsewhere in the United Kingdom is maintain the grant that we give centrally to the citizens advice bureaux to make sure that work goes ahead. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the comparative figures, he will see that this country spends way more per head on legal aid than comparator countries, and it is right that it should be reformed.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Q8. Is the Prime Minister aware of the very poor rail services between Gloucestershire and London? As a result of that problem, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and I have campaigned very long and hard for the line between Swindon and Kemble to be redoubled. Will the Prime Minister give every consideration possible to that project?
The Prime Minister
I do know the problems that there are between London and Gloucester, and also, as a Member of Parliament with a seat to the west of London, I know the problems on the Cotswold line, which has recently been improved through redoubling. I hope that my hon. Friend will sit patiently, because I very much hope that the Chancellor might have something to say about how we will make life easier for my hon. Friend’s constituents who want to get to and from Gloucester and London.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Q9. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the representations that he has received from the Deputy Prime Minister on reinstating the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady knows well that this was done on the basis of affordability, but she also knows that Sheffield Forgemasters has been encouraged to bid under the regional growth fund; that is an approach it can take.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Given the central role that RAF Marham and the Tornado have played in securing a no-fly zone over Libya, and the brave actions of our service personnel despite the ongoing uncertainty at that base, is it not time that we confirmed the future of RAF Marham as a fast jet base?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important representation on behalf of a vital base in her constituency. It gives me the opportunity to pay tribute again to what our brave pilots are doing, whether flying Typhoons in order to police the no-fly zone, or flying Tornadoes in order to carry out vital operations on the ground in Libya. She makes a very strong case, but I know that others will be making a case too. These decisions will be taken in due course by the Ministry of Defence.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Q10. Last week the Prime Minister told the House that people here are twice as likely to die from a heart attack as people in France, but is not the truth that survival rates are improving, we will have a lower death rate than France by next year, and we have record levels of satisfaction with the NHS? When will he stop talking down the NHS and distorting the figures?
The Prime Minister
The NHS has done extraordinary things for me and my family. I am passionate about the NHS. I passionately want it to remain free at the point of use on the basis of need and not related to people’s ability to pay. The point of reforming the NHS is to safeguard it for the future. That is what everyone in the House wants. I will never talk down the NHS, but if we really believe we cannot do better on cancer, heart disease and stroke, we are fooling ourselves. We must do better, and that is the aim of our reforms.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The coalition agreement promises the public greater accountability in NHS commissioning through directly elected individuals on the boards of primary care trusts. As PCTs are on their way out, does the Prime Minister accept that the best way now to deliver that commitment is to reserve places on GP consortia boards for locally elected people?
The Prime Minister
One of the ways we can make the NHS more accountable is through the better combination of the NHS and local government. That is what our proposals envisage. That is the best way to make sure that there is good democratic accountability for what happens in our NHS.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Q11. The Government have not yet factored into their future Budget proposals the sell-off of the bank assets that we own. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to volunteering and the dire straits that many young people face because of unemployment, will he consider an endowment fund for a nationwide volunteer programme, building on the six-week national citizen service and benefiting individuals and the nation as a whole?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely interesting suggestion. Obviously, there will be an opportunity to sell the bank assets that we own. I do not think that that opportunity is right now, or that we should wait to get national citizen service, which he rightly mentions, up and running. I want to see every 16-year-old in our country have the opportunity to take part in something like that to make them feel more part of our country and recognise the responsibilities that we all have as we move towards adulthood.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Q12. With the recent OECD report underlining the fact that the structural deficit has caused so many difficulties for our economy, does the Prime Minister agree that it is all the more important that we upgrade our industry and business by providing training opportunities for young people?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is why we are making bold and difficult reforms in education. As we stand today, less than 50% of young people at 16 are getting grades A to C in English and maths. We must make sure that people are properly prepared for the world of work, and that is not good enough. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, who is setting a higher bar for himself and for the Government. We have to make sure that we get over it.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s U-turn yesterday with the announcement that the United Kingdom will now opt into the EU directive on sex slave trafficking, which many have campaigned on for six months. This is a cross-party issue which he takes seriously. Will he ask the Home Secretary, seated on his left, to look particularly at unaccompanied children arriving at the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras, as there is evidence that some of them may be trafficked? We may be able to put some block on this terrible thing with a bit of work there.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely right: this is an issue of cross-party concern. As he knows, we completely agree with what was proposed for the human trafficking directive. We decided to wait and check that it would actually be in line with what was wanted and did not have further dangers in terms of our immigration policy. I am happy to say that we will be opting into the directive, with parliamentary permission. Above all, we must ensure that our arrangements are in place to help trafficked children, including in the way he suggests.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Q13. A recent Public Accounts Committee report found that in the past hospitals were built under the private finance initiative even though it was more expensive than other forms of financing. In some PFI hospitals, it now costs £333 to change a light switch. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it, and whose fault was it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of the PFI deals that were entered into were extremely expensive, and the costs will rack up on taxpayers for years to come. He does not have to believe me, as we now have it from Labour’s shadow Health Secretary, who has made a number of helpful interventions in recent weeks. The latest one was in the Morning Star—not a paper I always read. Whether talking to a communist paper or backing Tory plans, he is very consistent: he is always in favour of what the Government are doing. He said:
“There is definitely a case for saying we were poor at PFI, poor at negotiating PFI contracts from the outset.”
I could not agree more.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Q14. Some £180 million of land and property assets assembled by One North East are at risk of a fire sale to benefit central Government coffers. The Association of North East Councils and the Northern Business Forum have joined forces in a bid to take on those assets for the benefit of our region. Will the Prime Minister back the bid and put his warm words on localism into action?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As we move from the regional development agencies to the new local enterprise partnerships, many of which are up and running and doing a good job, it is important that we ensure we have good consistency and continuity, and I will certainly look at the case she makes.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend comment in advance of the Budget on this country’s current financial situation in terms that I can use to convey to my constituents the dreadful state of the economy that we inherited from the party opposite?
The Prime Minister
One way of putting that inheritance is that we had a Budget deficit that was bigger than Portugal’s, bigger than Spain’s and bigger than Greece’s. It is only because of the action we have taken in government to show how we will pay down our debts that we have interest rates in this country that are at a similar level to Germany’s. That is what we have been able to do, to the huge benefit of our economy and with absolutely no help from the party opposite.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q15. It was reported at the weekend that the Department of Health has failed to publish research it commissioned and received last autumn showing the highest ever level of satisfaction with the NHS. Will the Prime Minister urge the Secretary of State for Health to publish that research without further delay, or, by not doing so, will he confirm that the British Medical Association was right last week when it deplored the Government’s use of misleading and inaccurate information to denigrate the NHS and justify their reforms?
The Prime Minister
This Government have published more information about the NHS than any other. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is quoting from a published report. The point I would make to him is this: if we had survival rates for cancer that were the same as the European average, we would save 5,000 lives every year. Do Members opposite want to save those lives, or are they going to stick with the status quo and say that there should be no choice, that patients should not have a say in how they are treated and that doctors should not be more involved in the health service? What a backward step, and what a backward lot.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Parents value the 15 hours’ free nursery provision they are given, but 22 nurseries I have met are concerned that the new guidelines do not give enough flexibility. Will the Prime Minister talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to see whether there is a problem?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do that. Obviously, what we have done is to make sure that we have properly funded the extra hours of nursery education for three-year-olds and, for the first time, introduced that provision for disadvantaged two-year-olds, so that is a big step forward. At a time of spending constraint and austerity, we have been able to help the poorest families in our country to have a better future, but I will certainly take on board the point my hon. Friend makes and make sure that she meets my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to ensure that it is introduced in the right way.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
In a newspaper interview last weekend, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change cast doubt on the viability of investment in the civil nuclear energy industry. Given the strategic importance of the industry and the need for certainty and commitment from the Government, can the Prime Minister reassure the House and business that his policy is unaltered in that area?
The Prime Minister
I can do that, and the point I would make—the Energy and Climate Change Secretary would say exactly the same thing—is that what we have done is to create a fair playing field where that private investment can come forward. What we should not be doing is having unfair subsidies. We are making sure that on issues such as planning and carbon pricing the situation is very clear, so that nuclear, which is part of the energy mix in this country, can go on being part of the energy mix in our country.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Last Friday I visited Rawlins community college in my constituency and spoke to a very bright group of economics students. We discussed the fact that Governments cannot spend money they do not have. The students understood that; why does my right hon. Friend think the Opposition do not?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I know the Opposition do not like to hear about the mess they left, but let me give them some new published information about the mess they left. This is what we inherited: we are 72nd on wastefulness of Government spending, behind Kazakhstan and Cambodia; 108th on Government debt, behind Malawi, Lesotho and, yes, you’ve guessed it, Libya; and—this is the best one—on the soundness of banks, we are 133rd. Our banks, under Labour, were less sound than those in Serbia, Estonia, Madagascar and Chad. That is the record we inherited from the Opposition, and we will not tire of reminding them.
Child Health
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The petition states:
The Petition of Staff and Pupils of Hackleton Church of England Primary School,
Declares that just over eight million children die every year before their fifth birthday, mostly from preventable causes like diarrhoea and pneumonia; that ensuring that proven, cost-effective, preventative measures such as immunisation and breastfeeding are available at family and community level can save millions of these lives; that, where child health is prioritised, in countries such as Malawi, there are real and long-lasting results, showing that change is possible; and notes that the petitioners believe that global leaders must prioritise child health and end these unnecessary deaths.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for International Development to widen the Government’s approach on maternal and newborn health in the developing world to include child health.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000906]
Hospital Services (Shropshire)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I bring to the Floor of the House of Commons today a petition in the names of Donna Benbow and Helen Jervis, both young mothers, both constituents and both concerned about the movement of maternity and other services from the Royal Shrewsbury hospital to the Princess Royal hospital at Telford.
By way of background, I should explain that the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust which serves Shropshire and mid-Wales proposes a reconfiguration of the service that it currently provides. The petition is supported by 3,745 names. The case is also supported by more than 800 people who attended public meetings. Another constituent, Sally Jones, has contributed thousands of names to a petition that is to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Montgomeryshire,
Declares that the petitioners oppose plans to move the Special Care Baby Unit, the Children’s Ward and some maternity services from Shrewsbury to Telford.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent these services being moved from Shrewsbury to Telford.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000907]
Hospital Services (Shropshire)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Like the petition of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), my petition revolves around the concerns of local constituents about the move of maternity and paediatric services from the Royal Shrewsbury hospital to Telford. In the six years that I have been the Member of Parliament, I have never received such a large number of signatures—more than 29,000—which reflects the huge objection to the proposals, in conjunction with the opposition of paediatric consultants. For the board to try to move maternity and paediatric services away from Shrewsbury to Telford would be highly flawed and would fly in the face of all Government guidelines.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent these services being moved from Shrewsbury to Telford.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Shrewsbury and Atcham,
Declares that the petitioners oppose plans to move the Special Care Baby Unit, the Children’s Ward and some maternity services from Shrewsbury to Telford.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent these services being moved from Shrewsbury to Telford.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000908]
Ways and Means
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Statement
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be convenient to remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to them in the Vote Office at the end of the Chancellor’s speech. It may be also appropriate to remind Members that it is not the norm to intervene either on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or on the Leader of the Opposition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Last year’s emergency Budget was about rescuing the nation’s finances and paying for the mistakes of the past. Today’s Budget is about reforming the nation’s economy, so that we have enduring growth and jobs in the future; and it is about doing what we can to help families with the cost of living and the high price of oil.
We understand how difficult it is for so many people across our country right now. That we are able now to set off on the route from rescue to reform, and from reform to recovery, is because of the difficult decisions we have already taken.
Those decisions have brought economic stability, and without stability there can be no sustainable growth and no new jobs. Without stability, Governments have to keep coming back to their citizens for more—more taxes and more spending cuts. In Britain, we do not have to do that today.
We have inherited a record budget deficit, but we have set out a credible, comprehensive plan to deal with it. We have had to undertake difficult measures, but we have already asked the British people for what is needed, and today we do not need to ask for more.
So this is not a tax-raising Budget. But nor can we afford a giveaway. Taken together, the measures I will announce today are fiscally neutral across the period. This is a Budget built on sound money; a Budget that encourages enterprise; that supports exports, manufacturing and investment; that is based on robust independent figures: a Budget for making things, not for making things up. Britain has a plan, and we are sticking to it.
In recent months, many other countries have seen their ratings downgraded and their borrowing costs soar. Our country’s fiscal plans have been strongly endorsed by the International Monetary Fund, by the European Commission, by the OECD, and by every reputable business body in Britain. For anyone who questions whether this matters in the real world, to real businesses and families, they should consider this. Market interest rates in Greece are at 12.5%, in Ireland they are close to 10%, and in Portugal and Spain they are 7% and 5%. Today our country’s market interest rates have fallen to 3.6%. We have a higher deficit than Portugal, Greece and Spain, but we have virtually the same interest rates as Germany. This is our powerful monetary stimulus to our recovering economy. Stability, credibility, lower interest rates—that is what we have achieved.
But stability is not enough. So today, in addition to the Red Book, we are publishing “The Plan for Growth”. For this Budget confronts the hard truth that has been ignored for too long. Britain has lost ground in the world’s economy and needs to catch up. In the last decade, other nations have reduced their business tax rates, removed barriers to enterprise, improved education systems, reformed welfare systems and increased exports. Sadly, the reverse has happened in Britain. We gambled on a debt-fuelled model of growth that failed. With the state now accounting for almost half of all income, we simply cannot afford to go on like this. Britain has to earn its way in the modern world.
I turn to the forecasts. Last November, I told the House that the recovery was going to be more challenging than recoveries from recessions in recent decades. That is inevitable when we have had the sharpest fall in output since the 1930s, the highest budget deficit in our peacetime, and the largest banking crisis in our entire history. But I said that thanks to the course we have set, the independent forecast was for our economy to grow in each of the next five years, for unemployment to peak this year and then fall, and for employment to rise through this Parliament. That remains the case in the independent forecast we published today.
Those forecasts have been drawn up by the Office for Budget Responsibility. This important change has transformed the way Budgets are put together. So instead of Chancellors fixing the figures to fit the Budget, they now have to fix the Budget to fit the figures. Yesterday, the legislation to put the Office for Budget Responsibility on a permanent, statutory and independent footing received Royal Assent. I am sure that the whole House will want to thank Robert Chote, Steve Nickell, Graham Parker and their whole staff for the very professional job they are doing.
Let me start with their growth forecasts. It has been known for Chancellors in recent years to rattle these off at great speed in the hope that no one will keep up or notice. I will not do that. Although average quarterly growth this year is set to be higher than was previously forecast, the annual forecast for 2011 has been revised to 1.7%. This the OBR attributes specifically to the weaker-than-expected final quarter of last year, the rise in world commodity prices, and the higher-than-expected inflation in the UK. However, the OBR points out that the effect, in its words,
“creates scope for slightly stronger growth in later years”
than previously forecast. So while it expects real GDP growth of 2.5% next year, it forecasts it will then rise to 2.9% in 2013; to 2.9% in 2014; followed by 2.8% in 2015.
The European Commission has also this month published its growth forecasts. These show that the UK is forecast to grow more strongly in the coming year than Spain, Italy, France, the average for the eurozone and the average for the European Union.
All countries have to steer a course between two central risks: the risk of a European sovereign debt crisis on the one hand, and, on the other, the risk that comes from rising global commodity prices. Food prices around the world have increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of last year. Oil has risen by 35% in just five months. That is why the OBR expects inflation to remain between 4% and 5% for most of this year, before dropping to 2.5% next year and then to 2% in two years’ time.
I have today written to the Governor of the Bank of England to confirm that the inflation target for the Monetary Policy Committee will remain at 2%, as measured by the consumer prices index. I can also confirm that the asset purchase facility set up by my predecessor will remain in place.
One cause of current instability is the conflict inside Libya. The whole House will praise the courage and professionalism of our armed forces, who are trying to bring that conflict to an end and save lives. I can confirm that the additional cost of military operations will be met entirely from the Treasury reserve.
The House will also know that last week I authorised for the UK to take part in a co-ordinated G7 currency intervention in support of the Japanese yen. Our hearts go out to the Japanese people, and this is one way in which Britain can help. It is still too early to say what lasting impacts the earthquake and tsunami will have on the world economy. But this is an opportunity for me to report that we had already decided to rebuild the UK’s foreign currency reserves, which are at an historically low level. We will purchase a range of high-quality assets, although unfortunately, with the price of gold now at a record high, we will not be able to replenish the gold reserves sold at a record low.
I turn now to the fiscal forecasts for our debt and deficit. Borrowing to fund the deficit this year is now set to come in below target at £146 billion. It will then fall to £122 billion next year, then £101 billion the year after, then £70 billion in 2013-14, then £46 billion, and then £29 billion by 2015-16. Inflation has had its impact, but crucially, the OBR assesses that next year’s structural deficit remains the same as forecast last November. In other words, the size of the task of repairing Britain’s finances is unchanged. Our national debt, as a share of our national income, is forecast to be 60% this year, before peaking at 71%, and then starting to fall, reaching 69% by the end of the period.
This leads me to one of the central tasks of the OBR: that of assessing the Government’s performance against their stated Budget goals in an open and independent way, so that we avoid repeating the disastrous experience of the so-called golden rule. Our fiscal mandate is to achieve a cyclically adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling five-year forecast period, which is currently 2015-16. We have supplemented that with a fixed target for debt, so that debt should be falling as a proportion of GDP by the year 2015-16 as well. I can report to the House that the OBR confirms that on its central forecast we will meet both these objectives—a balanced structural current budget and falling national debt—by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, the forecast remains that we will meet both these objectives one year earlier.
I said at the start that stability and fiscal responsibility were not enough. Our country has to compete if we are going to create growth and jobs. Britain has fallen behind many others in the world in the last decade. We have dropped from fourth to 12th place in the world global competitiveness league, and growth in our country has become so unbalanced. Consider this staggering truth: during the boom years before the bust, private sector employment actually fell in a region as important as the west midlands.
So today’s Budget is an urgent call for action for Britain. Private sector growth must take the place of Government deficits. Prosperity must be shared across all parts of the UK. Yes, we want the City of London to remain the world’s leading centre for financial services, but we should resolve that the rest of the country becomes a world leader in advanced manufacturing, life sciences, creative industries, business services, green energy and so much more. This is our vision for growth. Difficult decisions and major reforms are needed to make it happen, but the alternative is to accept Britain’s economic decline and a continuing fall in living standards for our population, and that is not an alternative anyone in this House should be prepared to accept.
This Budget sets for Britain these four economic ambitions: that Britain should have the most competitive tax system in the G20; be the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business; be a more balanced economy, by encouraging exports and investment; and have a more educated work force who are the most flexible in Europe. Let me now set out the measures that will achieve these ambitions.
First, on taxation, here’s the truth: Britain used to have the third lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. It now has the sixth highest. At the same time, our tax code has become so complex that it recently overtook India’s to become the longest in the world. From Adam Smith to Nigel Lawson, people have set out the principles of good taxation, and this Government declare these principles again for the modern age. Our taxes should be efficient and support growth. They should be certain and predictable. They should be simple to understand and easy to comply with, and our tax system should be fair, reward work, support aspiration and ask the most from those who can most afford the most.
In July last year, we set up the Office of Tax Simplification to provide independent advice on how to reduce the complexity of the existing system. I want to thank Michael Jack and John Whiting for the work that they have done. Following their recommendations, I can announce today that this Budget abolishes no fewer than 43 complex reliefs. This includes the millennium gift aid system, which we will not need for another 989 years. However, I have decided not to follow their advice to abolish the community investment tax relief, and instead I encourage people to take it up. But this Budget, at a stroke, removes over 100 pages from our tax code and begins the work of simplification.
In the last Budget, I announced that from next month welfare payments and public service pensions would be uprated in line with the consumer prices index. I said at the time that we should also consider uprating the tax system in the same way, so from April 2012 the default indexation assumption for direct taxes will move to CPI. There will be protection through this Parliament for those eligible for age-related, married couple and blind person’s allowances, and for employers’ national insurance contributions. The increase in the personal tax allowance already announced will vastly exceed anything lost through employee NICs uprating, and that is even before any further increases in that allowance. This will bring coherence to the tax and benefit system, and we look to moving indirect taxes on to the same basis when the fiscal position allows.
But there is one further step that we want to undertake that will dramatically simplify the tax system. For decades, we have operated income tax and national insurance as two fundamentally different taxes and forced businesses large and small to operate two completely different systems of administration, with two different periods and bases of charge. The resulting anomalies are legion, and it imposes totally unnecessary costs and complexity on employers and costs the taxpayer in the extra burden that it places on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. So I am announcing today that the Government will consult on merging the operation of national insurance and income tax.
I am not proposing that we extend national insurance to pensioners, or to other forms of income, or that we abolish the contributory principle. Our purpose is not to increase taxes; it is to simplify them, and this huge task will therefore require a great deal of consultation and take a number of years to complete, but it is time we took this historic step to simplify dramatically our tax system and make it fit for the modern age.
Making our tax system more competitive is another challenge for the times we live in. Again, let us face facts. Other countries are quite deliberately making their tax systems more competitive and attracting multinational companies away from the United Kingdom. We could stand there and do nothing, but increasing the living standards of every hard-pressed family in the country depends on keeping companies, and the jobs, the investment and the tax revenues that come with them, here in the United Kingdom. So we will go ahead with the highly competitive tax rate on profits derived from patents in industries like pharmaceuticals; we will fundamentally reform the complex rules for controlled foreign companies and make them more territorial; and we will introduce new rules that effectively apply an ultra-competitive 5.75% rate on overseas financing income. This will give us a far more attractive system than France, America or Germany. I want Britain to be the place international businesses go to, not the place that they leave.
But today I want to do even more, so I can announce that from April this year, corporation tax will be reduced not just by the 1% I previously announced, but by 2%, and it will continue to fall by 1% in each of the following three years, taking our corporate tax rate right down to 23%—16 % lower than America, 11% lower than France and 7% lower than Germany—the lowest corporation tax in the G7. Let it be heard clearly around the world, from Shanghai to Seattle and from Stuttgart to Sao Paolo: Britain is open for business.
To ensure that this is not a net tax cut for banks, I am adjusting the bank levy rate next year to offset its effect. In each and every year of this Parliament, our permanent bank levy raises more in any one year than the last Parliament’s bank taxes.
The most competitive tax system in the G20 is the first of our economic ambitions. The second is that Britain becomes the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. Again, let us face facts: we are not that today. In the last decade, countries such as Germany, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands have all overtaken us in the international rankings of competitiveness. That is not surprising when the total cost of regulation imposed on business since 1998 is almost £90 billion a year.
So in today’s plan for growth, we take action: £350 million worth of specific regulations will go, including the costly dual discrimination rules in the Equality Act 2010. Lord Young’s recommendations on health and safety laws will be implemented in full; the no-win, no-fee legal services that prey on employers will be restricted; existing regulation will be scrutinised in a public consultation process; and from April, we are going to impose a moratorium exempting all businesses employing fewer than 10 people, and all genuine start-ups, from new domestic regulation for the next three years. We will also take this fight against regulation to Brussels, where this week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be recruiting other European allies to ensure that our continent does not price itself out of the world.
We are also going to tackle what every Government have identified as a chronic obstacle to economic growth in Britain, and what no Government have done anything about: the planning system. Councils are spending 13% more in real terms on planning permissions than they did five years ago, despite the fact that applications have fallen by a third. Yes, local communities should have a greater say in planning, but from today, we will expect all bodies involved in planning decisions to prioritise growth and jobs, and we will introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is yes. We will retain existing controls on green belt, but we will remove the nationally imposed targets on the use of previously developed land. We will also allow certain use class changes, introduce time limits on applications and pilot, for the first time ever, auctions of planning permission on land.
Cumbersome planning rules and bad regulation stand in the way of new jobs, and so too does the shortage of finance. Small businesses are the innocent victims of the credit crunch, and that is why we have agreed with the banks a 15% increase in the availability of credit to small businesses. But the lack of start-up capital has long been a problem in the British economy. Too often we have great ideas in Britain, but it is other countries that exploit them, so today I announce sweeping changes to improve the generosity, the simplicity and the reach of the enterprise investment scheme. From April this year, income tax relief will increase from 20% to 30%. Next year, we will double the amount that any individual can invest through EIS, increase the size of company that can qualify for investment, and raise the limit on the amount that can be invested in a company by 400%.
Next week, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary will launch “Start-up Britain”, a new campaign by entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs, supported by many of Britain’s most successful firms, that will help people to start and grow businesses. Today we can add to that help. From 6 April this year, I am doubling the size of entrepreneur’s relief to £10 million. Let Britain be the home of enterprise in an age when people can invest all over the world.
It is time too that we ended the uncertainty around the taxation of non-domiciles. They are welcome in this country, but I have always believed that they should pay something in return for their special tax status. The last Government followed our advice and introduced a £30,000 charge for those who had lived here for seven years. I think we can ask more from those who have been here even longer, so I am increasing the charge to £50,000 for non-doms who have been in the country for 12 years. This will raise over £200 million in the coming years but, in return, and to encourage investment in our country, I am removing the tax charge when non-doms remit foreign income or capital gains to the UK for the purpose of investing in a British business, and we will introduce a statutory residence test. To end the speculation and uncertainty, and to provide stability, I confirm that I will be making no further changes to the taxation of non-domiciles in this Parliament.
In an age when business and capital and people can increasingly move anywhere, high tax rates can do real damage. That is true for high corporate tax rates, and it is true for high personal tax rates too. They crush enterprise, undermine aspiration and often undermine tax revenues as people avoid them. I am clear that the 50% tax rate would do lasting damage to our economy if it were to become permanent. That is why I regard it as a temporary measure, just as my Labour predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), did when he introduced it. I have said before that now would not be the right time to remove it when we are asking others in our society on much lower incomes to make sacrifices, for we are all in this together, but I think it is sensible to see how much revenue it actually raises. I have asked Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—[Interruption.] I have asked HMRC to find out the truth when the self-assessment forms start coming in.
Of course, taxation must be fair. It is right that the wealthiest should pay more than others, and it is especially wrong when they avoid taxes. I will have much more to say later on in this speech on tax avoidance and evasion, but there is one area that needs extra work in the coming months—the taxation of very high value property, where evasion and avoidance are widespread and some of the wealthiest are not paying their fair share. So as well as reviewing revenues from the 50p tax rate, we will also be redoubling our efforts to find ways of ensuring that owners of high value property cannot avoid paying their fair share.
Help for small businesses, a boost for enterprise, reforms to planning, and cuts to existing regulations and a moratorium on new ones, are all part of our ambition to make Britain the best place in Europe to start, grow and finance a business.
Our third ambition is to encourage investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy for Britain. In “The Plan for Growth” that we publish today, we set out specific measures we can take to help a wide range of businesses. In life sciences, we will radically reduce the time it takes to get approval for clinical trials; in our digital and creative industries, we will improve the intellectual property regime; and in our professional and business services—one of our unsung success stories—we will reform our burdensome money laundering regime now, promote the UK as the global centre of legal arbitration, and launch a new, trusted business visa service.
Our retail sector includes many small shopkeepers who are anxious about the impact of coming business rate rises. The last Government planned that the current rate relief holiday for small businesses should end in October this year. I do not think that that would be right, so I can announce that, at a cost to the Exchequer of £370 million, I will extend the rate holiday for small businesses for another year to October 2012.
We will also take action to help the construction industry. Stamp duty will now be levied on the mean value of the houses being purchased within a portfolio, not the bulk cost, and real estate investment trusts will be simplified to encourage home building. But average mortgage deposits are close to 30%, and this puts home ownership beyond the reach of many, many families. This is not fair.
So I can announce today that, from the proceeds of this year’s bank levy, we will fund a £250 million commitment to first-time buyers. A new shared equity scheme, First Buy, will be available for first-time buyers who want to purchase a newly built property, but who cannot afford the high deposits. This will help 10,000 families get on the housing ladder for the first time. The previous Government intended to end the temporary changes to the support for mortgage interest scheme next January. Instead, we will extend them for another year. That will reduce mortgage arrears for around 100,000 out-of-work home owners.
Manufacturing is crucial to the rebalancing of our economy. Over the last decade, the share of the economy accounted for by financial services increased by over two thirds, while manufacturing’s share fell by almost a half. Under this Government, manufacturing is now growing at a record rate, and 14,000 more jobs have been created in the sector in the last three months. To help that continue, the Government are announcing plans today to make our export promotion more entrepreneurial and create new export credits to help smaller businesses; launch Britain’s first technology and innovation centre for high-value manufacturing; and fund a further nine new university centres for innovative manufacturing.
Science is one area where Britain already has an advantage over many other countries, and it is central to our future as a place to create businesses. That is one reason why I protected the science budget from cuts last year. I can tell the House that I have been able to find—again from this year’s extra bank levy—an additional £100 million to invest in new science facilities at the Babraham research campus in Cambridge, the Norwich research park for environmental and life sciences, the International Space Innovation Centre at Harwell, and the national science and innovation campus at Daresbury.
But if Britain is really to become a home of innovation, we want research and development to take place not just in our great universities, but in our smaller businesses too. One of our greatest high-tech innovators, James Dyson, has urged me to increase the support that they get. I have listened to him, and have gone even further than he recommends. From April this year, the small companies research and development tax credit will rise to 200%, and from next year it will rise again, to 225%.
We also want to encourage manufacturers to invest in the latest machinery and technology, so I propose to double the limit on capital allowances for short-life assets from four to eight years. We will also extend the allowance for the renovation of business premises in assisted areas—which was due to expire next year—for a further five years. Supporting the private sector across the whole of the United Kingdom is central to our economic ambitions.
Savings in the Department for Transport mean that we can also afford £200 million of additional investment in our regional railways. We will go ahead with the £85 million Ordsall chord scheme, linking Manchester’s Victoria and Piccadilly stations and significantly reducing journey times between Liverpool and Leeds. We can commit—I know that hon. Members have been calling for this, as we have just been hearing—to the Swindon-to-Kemble redoubling scheme, which will complement our electrification of the Great Western main line to Wales. We can also find another £100 million to help councils repair the winter potholes on our roads.
Helping all parts of our country to succeed is also the purpose behind the new enterprise zones that we launch today. There have been reports that we would be able to fund 10 new enterprise zones. Today I confirm that instead we will fund 21 new enterprise zones. Businesses will get up to a 100% discount on rates, new superfast broadband and the potential to use enhanced capital allowances in zones where there is a strong focus on manufacturing. In return for radically reduced planning restrictions, we will let local authorities keep all business rate growth in their zones for a period of at least 25 years to spend on development priorities.
The first 10 enterprise zones will be in urban areas of highest need, but also the highest potential. They will be in Birmingham and Solihull, Leeds, Liverpool, Greater Manchester, the Tees valley, Tyneside, the Bristol area, the black country, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and Sheffield. Tomorrow, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will announce some of the specific locations of the new enterprise zones. I can confirm that a further zone will be located in London, where I have asked the Mayor to choose a suitable site. A further 10 enterprise zones will be announced in the summer. I want local enterprise partnerships all over the country to come forward with proposals.
Responsibilities are devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so we will work with the Administrations so that they, too, can enjoy the benefits of this policy. In Northern Ireland, the Treasury will publish a paper tomorrow on how we help its private sector to grow. To deal with the unique issues posed by the Irish Republic’s business tax regime, the paper will consider the case for Northern Ireland having an even lower rate of corporation tax than the rest of the UK. I look forward to engaging with all parties there on the way forward.
There is one other issue that affects a specific part of our country, and that is the very high water bills for customers in the south-west, because of the geography there, particularly for those on lower incomes. We will come forward with public money to help bring those bills down.
Let me turn now to the opportunity presented by the green energy revolution and our determination to be the greenest Government ever. We have already announced our ambitious renewable heat incentive and support for low-emission cars, and changes to the company car tax regime today will increase that support. Our green deal to reduce energy bills for homes will be introduced next year. I can confirm that we will act to incentivise and encourage its take-up. We are pioneering new carbon capture and storage technology, with £1 billion already provided. Future projects will be funded out of general spending rather than a complex new levy, but we need to take two further, bold steps if we are to make the green energy revolution a reality.
First, as I have long argued, investment in green energy will never be certain unless we bring some stability to the price of carbon. Today we become the first country in the world to introduce a carbon price floor for the power sector. The price will start at around £16 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2013, and move to a target price of £30 per tonne in 2020. That will provide the incentive for billions of pounds of new investment in our dilapidated energy infrastructure. To ensure that customers get a fair deal, we will closely follow developments in the energy sector in the light of the Ofgem review published on Monday. At the same time, I am extending the climate change agreements to 2023 and increasing the climate change levy discount on electricity for those who sign up from 65% to 80% from April 2013. This will help our most energy-intensive industries. Green taxes will increase as a proportion of total tax revenues, as we promised.
The second bold step that we take today is the creation of the green investment bank, to support low-carbon investment where the returns are too long term or too risky for the market. We have already committed £1 billion to the bank; today I commit £2 billion more, funded from asset sales and underwritten by the Treasury. This will enable the green investment bank to start operation one year earlier than planned, in 2012. It will leverage an additional £15 billion of private sector investment in green projects over this Parliament. I can also confirm today that from 2015-16, and subject to our overall debt target being met, we will allow the green investment bank to borrow and invest in a better future.
So, a green investment bank with its resources trebled; a new carbon price floor; new capital allowances for manufacturing; new support for home builders and first-time buyers; an economy where growth happens across the country and across all sectors—that is our ambition.
That leads me to our fourth ambition: to create a more educated work force who are the most flexible in Europe. Britain’s working-age population has lower skills than the populations of America, Germany and France, and that is probably the biggest problem facing our economy in the future. That is why we are undertaking far-reaching reform of our schools and universities, and funding a pupil premium and additional early-years support for our most disadvantaged children in poverty. It is also why we commissioned Alison Wolf’s impressive report.
The Government are committed to funding new university technical colleges, which will provide 11 to 19-year-olds with vocational training that is among the best in the world. The curriculum is being developed in close co-ordination with both local universities and leading employers. I commend Ken Baker on getting the new colleges up and running in our manufacturing heartlands. To date, the Government have announced that we will fund 12 new university technical colleges. I can tell the House that we will provide funding to double that number to at least 24.
We will also deal directly with the challenge of youth unemployment that has been on a steady rise for the last seven years, and give people direct contact with the workplace. Instead of 20,000 young people benefiting from our new work experience scheme, as we planned, we will increase that number fivefold to 100,000 places over the next two years. In Austria, Germany and Switzerland, around one in four employers offer apprenticeships. In England fewer than one in 10 do. That has got to change, after 10 years of a Labour Government.
Last year, my hon. Friend the Skills Minister published a skills strategy and confirmed the largest-ever expansion in adult apprenticeships. Today, I am funding another 40,000 apprenticeships for young unemployed people. There are currently only 1,500 higher level apprenticeships across the whole of England. This Budget provides for 10,000 more. That brings a total of 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years as a result of this Government’s policies—a Government backing what works: real training, secure jobs and more growth.
We should not talk about those at the start of their working life without also talking about those who are coming to the end of their working lives and looking to retirement. I am very proud that it was this coalition Government who took the decision to re-link the basic state pension to earnings and guarantee its increase through a triple lock. This would simply not have been affordable, as Adair Turner’s report argued, without an increase in the state pension age. The state pension age is set to rise to 66 by 2020. I can tell the House that we will now seek, hopefully with all-party support, a new, more automatic mechanism for future increases in the state pension age based on regular, independent reviews of longevity. This is another major reform that will help Britain to live within her means.
We also need to make sure that our public service pensions are fair to those who give their working lives to help others, and fair to the taxpayers who have to fund them. Today we publish the result of our consultation on the discount rate, which shows that a more appropriate rate would be inflation plus GDP growth. This reinforces our case for increasing the employee contributions by an average of 3%. Indeed, the new discount rate could be used to justify further contribution rises. As part of the wider reforms, I am not proposing to ask for more than the 3% average.
John Hutton has now completed his final report, which looks at the pension benefit. I am sure that Members in all parts of this House will want to thank him for a very impressive piece of work—[Interruption.] Or at least in part of the House. I confirm today that the Government accept Hutton’s recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers, unions and others. There should be no cherry-picking on either side. I believe that this House should also recommend similar changes to the pensions of MPs.
We should also address the state pension system, which has become unbelievably complex. If people cannot work out what they are going to get in retirement through the second state pension or how much will be clawed back by the means tests, then they cannot work out what they need to save. So the Pensions Minister, the Pensions Secretary and I have worked together to develop options including a new single-tier pension. It would be simple, it would be based on contributions, and it would be a flat rate, so people know what to expect—and it would cost no more than the current system. We currently estimate that this new single-tier state pension would be worth around £140 per week. It will not apply to current pensioners, and it will take years fully to come into effect.
As with the other major reforms that I have announced today to simplify our tax system, to improve our economic performance and to reform our public sector pensions, this Government are doing the right thing for the long term: the most competitive corporate taxes; the best place to start up and run a business; an investing, exporting, greener, manufacturing and more balanced economy; a better educated work force; a fairer pensions system. These are our ambitions for Britain, with the measures to match.
Let me now turn to personal taxes and duties, and let me start by noting that a society should not just be judged by the strength of its economy alone, but also by the compassion of its people—[Interruption.] Well, that is what I happen to think, anyway. The Culture Secretary and I have been working on a series of substantial reforms that will support giving, from the largest donations to the coins collected in the charity bucket.
First, we will dramatically simplify the administration of gift aid. Instead of asking charities to submit a written record of every donation made, we will by 2013 pay for a much easier online system. Secondly, we will encourage wealthy people in our society to give even more. The gift aid benefit limits will be increased from £500 to £2,500 so that charities and museums can say thank you properly. We will consult in the coming year on how to encourage the donations of pre-eminent works of art and historical objects to our nation in return for a tax deduction. We will introduce from April next year this major change to our inheritance tax system: if you leave 10% or more of your estate to charity, the Government will take 10% off your inheritance tax rate. Let us be clear. No beneficiaries will be better off as a result of this policy—just the charities, to the tune of £300 million. I want to make giving 10% of your legacy to charity the new norm in our country.
The third reform we make to the charitable taxes is about not the biggest donations but the smallest. We will introduce a new scheme where gift aid can be claimed on small donations, up to a total of £5,000 a year per charity, without the need for donors to fill in any forms at all. That means gift aid on the contents of the collecting tin and the street bucket, and 100,000 charities will benefit to the tune of £240 million. Together, these represent the most radical and most generous reforms to charitable giving for more than 20 years. Do the right thing for a charity, and the Government will do the right thing for you. It is a big help for the big society.
But our charity does not extend to those in our society who seek to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Tax avoidance and evasion mean that we have to ask more from working families, and that is not fair. Unfortunately, not enough has been done in recent years to tackle this injustice. HMRC estimates that £14 billion was lost through avoidance and evasion in 2008. Today we publish our new strategy paper on tackling tax avoidance and we take specific measures to shut down the open abuses that have been allowed to continue for too long.
We will close down three forms of stamp duty land tax avoidance, tighten capital gains rules for companies, and end the practice of disguised remuneration, which sees highly paid employees offered tax-free, lifetime loans that are never repaid; and we are going to tackle the exploitation of low value consignment relief that has left our high street music stores fighting a losing battle with warehouses in the Channel Islands. In total, on the numbers audited by the independent OBR, the tax avoidance measures in this Budget raise around £1 billion a year—that is £4 billion over the Parliament. We are doing more today to clamp down on tax avoidance than in any Budget in recent years.
That gives us more resources, in a fiscally neutral budget, to help those families who do pay their taxes, but who are struggling with the daily cost of living. We have already taken steps to help from this April. I am glad to report that, following measures in my Budget last year, every local authority in England has chosen to freeze council tax in the coming year. Compared with the amount that council tax could have risen by, this freeze will save a family in an average band D property £72 a year. In two weeks’ time, the child tax credit for lower-income families will increase by an additional £255. I can confirm today that in the coming year all workers in the armed forces, the prison service and the NHS, and teachers and civil servants, earning £21,000 a year or less will receive a pay uplift of £250.
As I said last year, the national insurance rate rise that the last Government announced will have to go ahead, but because we have increased the threshold, it will actually be cheaper to employ people on incomes of less than £21,000 than it is today. That is how we have stopped Labour’s jobs tax. Anyone earning less than £35,000 a year will also be better off because in 14 days’ time, the personal income tax allowance—the amount people can earn tax free—will go up by £1,000. That is the largest rise in our history. That means, in real terms, around £160 extra per year or £200 in cash terms for 23 million taxpayers.
The coalition agreement commits this Government to real increases in the personal allowance each and every year and sets this country the goal that no one earning less than £10,000 should be caught in the income tax net. This Budget today takes another step towards that valuable goal. I can confirm that from April next year, the personal tax allowance will increase by a further £630 to £8,105. That is another real increase of £48 extra per year, or £126 in cash terms—together with this year’s rise, a total of £326 extra money each year for those working hard to pay for their family’s needs. It means that just 10 months into office, this coalition Government have taken 1.1 million low-paid people out of tax altogether. And one more thing: last year, we restricted the allowance increase to basic rate taxpayers; this year, we have not. The result is that no more people will be pulled into the higher rate tax band as a result of this Budget.
Let me turn now to excise duties—first, air passenger duty. Let me be straight with the House: we had hoped that we could replace the per passenger tax with a per plane tax. We have tried every possible option, but have reluctantly had to accept that all are currently illegal under international law. So we will work with others to try to get that law changed. In the meantime, we are consulting today on how to improve the existing and rather arbitrary bands that appear to believe that the Caribbean is further away than California. We will also seek to bring private jets, which pay no duty at all, into the scope of taxation. The wealthiest should not escape the tax that the ordinary holidaymaker has to pay. I can tell the House that with the hefty duty rise last year and with the cost pressures on families, we think it would be fair to delay this April’s air passenger duty rise to next year.
Let me turn to duties on alcohol. We have already announced plans to increase duty on the strongest beers and cut in half the duty paid on low-alcohol beers. Beyond that, I can tell the House I have no further changes to announce to the rates of alcohol duty put in place by the previous Government. As usual, these changes will come in at midnight on Sunday. As announced again by my predecessor, tobacco duty rates will increase by 2% above inflation. However, it is clear that the structure of the tobacco duty regime is being exploited to produce cheaper cigarettes, so we will change the regime to narrow the differential between these lower-cost brands and the rest, and between cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco. This will reduce smoking and improve our nation’s health. These tobacco duty changes will come into effect at 6 pm this evening.
I turn now to other excise duties. Rates of vehicle excise duty will increase by inflation only and we will freeze rates for heavy goods vehicles to help our hauliers. I am also proposing to increase the approved mileage allowance payments. This mileage rate has not increased at all since 2002, making those who depend on their car for work increasingly worse off. It will now increase from 40p to 45p per mile and I can tell the House that we will extend this relief to cover volunteers travelling as passengers, as charities and others have been calling for for many years.
All other duty rises will remain exactly as planned by the previous Government—except fuel duty. The price of petrol has become a huge burden on families. In the last six months, the cost of filling up a family car such as a Ford Focus has increased by £10. This rise has also hit businesses hard, especially small businesses. It is important that when shocks like the steep rise in the oil price occur, a responsible Government are able to listen and respond.
Let us be clear about what is within our control and what is not, so that we do not raise false hopes. British Governments are not in charge of the world’s oil price, and as we have seen, events like those in the middle east can push the cost of petrol at the pump higher. But British Governments are in charge of the duty that we levy on petrol, and the previous Cabinet put in place, before they left office, a new fuel duty escalator that involved seven fuel duty increases. Three have already taken place, adding just over 3p to the price of petrol. The third step on the escalator is due to come into effect next week, and that would add almost another 5p to the price of a litre of petrol.
I have made it clear that I would listen to the concerns put to me by so many people. Many have suggested that we should use the extra revenues we automatically get from the North sea. It is true that they go up when the oil price rises, but the OBR confirms that rising oil prices also cause other tax revenues across the rest of the economy to fall by a similar amount, and I am not prepared to undermine the public finances like that.
Others in this House have suggested that we create a separate VAT rate for petrol.The Treasury has examined this proposal. It would not fully offset the 5p rise that is coming, and it would take six years to come into effect—and that is because it turns out to be illegal. So I have decided to reject this approach and do something different.
The North sea oil tax regime was most recently changed in 2006, when the price of oil stood at $66. It is now almost double that amount. That means that oil companies are making unexpected profits on oil prices that are far higher than those that they based their investment decisions on. Other oil-producing countries have a tax regime that automatically regulates returns when prices rise. We do not, and the North sea is too mature to introduce such a regime now. Instead, we can do something else: we can introduce a fair fuel stabiliser.
From tomorrow, the supplementary charge levied on oil and gas production will increase from 20% to 32%. Even after this, profits on a barrel of oil are forecast to be higher in the next five years than in the last five years, but this will raise an additional £2 billion of revenue, and we will use the new tax money to do this: first, we will delay the inflation rise in duty planned for next week until next year and also delay the April 2012 inflation rise until the following summer; secondly, the fuel duty escalator that adds an extra penny on top of inflation every year will be cancelled—not just for this year or next year, but for the rest of this Parliament.
But I do not want important investment in the North sea lost, so if the oil price sustains a fall below $75—and we will consult on the precise figure—we will reintroduce the escalator and reduce the new oil tax in proportion. That is how it will work: no escalator when the oil price is high; no extra tax on the profits of North sea oil companies if the oil price falls and stays low. That is the fair fuel stabiliser, and this is the result for Britain’s hard-pressed families: I have made sure there will be no fuel duty rise this year; I have cancelled the fuel duty escalator when the oil price is high; and one final thing, as well as stopping these fuel duty rises, I am today cutting fuel duty by 1p per litre. This will take effect in petrol stations from 6 pm tonight.
I know that by itself this will not end the pressure on family budgets, but we have done what we can to help—help for families, help for businesses: a Government who listen and help. There were some who said that this year my job was to help families with the cost of living, but there were others who said, no, my task was to back enterprise, support business and undertake far-reaching reform to help the economy grow. It is the central understanding of this Government, and core to our strategy, that these are not two separate tasks: they are one and the same thing.
We are only going to raise the living standards of families if we have an economy that can compete in the modern age. So this is our plan for growth. We want the words:
“Made in Britain”, “Created in Britain”, “Designed in Britain” and “Invented in Britain”
to drive our nation forward—a Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers. That is how we will create jobs and support families. We have put fuel into the tank of the British economy. I commend this Budget to the House.
PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I now call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled “Amendment of the Law”. It is on that motion that the debate will take place today and on the succeeding days. The remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 29 March.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Amendment of the Law
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
The Chancellor spoke for an hour, but one fact says it all, and he could not bring himself to mention it. Growth is down, last year, this year and next year. It is the same old Tories. It’s hurting, but it isn’t working.
What did the Chancellor say last year about growth? “Judge me on the figures.” Well, judge him we will. Every time he comes to the House, growth is downgraded. Last June, 2011 growth was down from 2.6% to 2.3%. In November, it was down again. In January, what did the Prime Minister say? His three priorities for the year were growth, growth, growth. And what has happened in this Budget? Growth is down, down, down. Taking account of all the measures—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We should show the Leader of the Opposition the same courtesy that was shown to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Edward Miliband
What is the Chancellor’s singular achievement? To deliver a budget for growth that downgrades the growth forecasts. Growth is down this year to 1.8%, and it is downgraded next year too. That did not happen by chance; it happened by choice—the Chancellor’s choice—and it was the wrong choice: to go too far and too fast. In the Chancellor’s own words in the June Budget, he chose to go £40 billion further and faster in tax rises and spending cuts than our plan to halve the deficit over four years. That pace of cuts has seen consumer confidence fall in almost every month since the general election.
In his first Budget, the Chancellor promised
“steady and sustained economic recovery”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 168.]
When last September’s growth figures were published, he took the credit. He called the figures “a vote of confidence” in the Government’s economic policy. But when the economy contracted in the fourth quarter, what did he do? He blamed the snow. Even he must appreciate the irony. While the Prime Minister was grounded from his Christmas trip to Thailand, the Chancellor was on the piste in Klosters. I suppose it was the right type of snow for a ski-ing holiday; it was just the wrong kind of snow for our economy.
What is it about the British snow? There was worse snow in Germany, a big freeze in France, and in the United States the worst blizzards for decades. Despite all that, those country’s economies grew in the fourth quarter. While our growth forecasts have worsened, theirs have improved. [Interruption.] The Chancellor should calm down a little. The German economy is forecast to grow more strongly than last year, and so is that of the United States. Growth in the world economy has been revised upwards. Which is the major country that is downgrading its growth forecasts? The United Kingdom. It is not the wrong type of snow that is to blame, but the wrong type of Chancellor—the wrong type of Chancellor in the wrong type of government with the wrong priorities for Britain—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Courtesy should be shown. The public out there also want to hear what the Opposition have to say. If there are Government Members who do not want to listen, will they please leave the Chamber? The public out there want to hear both sides of the argument. Some people may agree, and some may disagree.
Edward Miliband
Government Members shout and jeer, Mr Deputy Speaker, as unemployment hits a 17-year high. What more do we need to know about the Conservative party?
The Chancellor also promised in his June Budget that he would deliver “low inflation”, and what has happened? Inflation has risen, month after month after month. That did not simply happen by accident. It is happening because the Chancellor made the wrong decision on VAT. Same old taxes, same old Tories.
The Chancellor promised us falling unemployment too, and what has happened since he delivered his first Budget? Over 60,000 more people are now looking for work. To this Tory Government, just like those of the past, unemployment is a price worth paying. People who heard the Chancellor’s Budget speech today will wonder what world he was describing. [Interruption.] I think that the Chancellor should listen to this.
In the constituencies of more than 130 Members of Parliament, 10 people are chasing every vacancy. One in five young people is looking for work. Families are seeing their living standards squeezed, not just this year but year after year. What do the Government say to communities that are losing their jobs? Let me tell the House what they recently told the people of Newport, justifying the closure of their passport office. They said that the redundancy payments of the staff who were being sacked would provide a
“boost in trade for the local economy”.
What kind of planet do these people live on? On growth, on inflation, on unemployment, on the promises that he made, the Chancellor could not bring himself to admit that his second Budget tells the story of the failure of his first. At this stage of the recovery, growth should be powering ahead and unemployment should be falling fast. Every month that unemployment is higher than it should be stores up long-term damage for our country. Every month when growth is lower than it should be, that hits the future potential of our economy. The problem is that, instead of admitting it, the Chancellor refuses to change course. What did the Energy Secretary say? If the figures change, the Government
“should not be lashed to the mast”
of their reckless gamble. They should be willing to change and to think again.
It is not as if the Government have not had practice in the U-turn business. Indeed, they are becoming past masters at it. On forests, school sport, housing benefit for those looking for work and even the vanity photographer, they have been forced to climb down. It is on this, the issue that matters most, that they are least willing to change. At the weekend we learned something new about the Chancellor. Apparently, his political aspiration is to be a blend of Nigel Lawson and Michael Heseltine. Another comparison springs to mind. We see the same hubris and arrogance that we saw in the early 1990s, the same broken promises, the same view that unemployment is “a price worth paying”. The Chancellor is Norman Lamont with an iPod, and on his playlist, no doubt, is “Je Ne Regrette Rien”.
This is not a growth Budget. It is not a jobs Budget. It is a Budget for more of the same, from a complacent, arrogant Chancellor in a complacent, arrogant Government. It’s hurting, but it isn’t working.
Let us not forget that these are not just the Chancellor’s decisions, and they are not just the Prime Minister’s decisions; they are the Deputy Prime Minister’s decisions too. He is an accomplice to the Tory plan. When it comes to the economy, the man who coined the phrase “alarm-clock Britain” has the snooze button well and truly on. Nobody voted for this deficit plan, least of all his Liberal Democrat voters, who were told in promise after promise that he would never countenance it. If I can put it this way to him, it is no wonder nobody wants to share a platform with him.
On the measures in the Budget, I welcome the support for the armed forces, and on the measures the Chancellor proposes to support growth, we will look at them but there is little reason to believe they will make the difference to growth that we need. Indeed, the Justice Secretary fell asleep during the Chancellor’s speech, his growth strategy was so compelling. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already factored in every single measure he has just announced, and it still produced today’s downgraded growth forecast.
We cannot blame people for being sceptical when the Chancellor says he has a new flagship policy for growth, because they are asking what happened to his last flagship policy for growth at the centre of his June Budget. Does anyone remember the national insurance holiday? He was strangely silent about it today. In June, he took the credit at the Dispatch Box for helping 400,000 small firms, but how many have actually benefited? He has been strangely shy in revealing the figures, but someone let slip to the Financial Times that by mid-January it wasn’t 400,000, it wasn’t 40,000, it wasn’t even 4,000; it was less than 0.5% of the number he promised, just 1,500 businesses.
On the Chancellor’s incentives for small firms, we will look at the detail, but I have to say that his decision to cancel flexible working for families with children aged between 16 and 18 is extraordinary. This Prime Minister took the credit for championing that policy with Mumsnet, and then a few months later he takes the credit with small business for dumping it. We have to ask, has he got no shame? The idea that families needing flexibility imperil our economic future is, frankly, absurd, and it tells us all we need to know about this Government’s values and how they think our economy succeeds: greater insecurity as the route to greater prosperity. We take a different view. Flexible working is yet another broken promise from the broken-promise Prime Minister.
While we are on the subject of broken promises, let us remember what the Prime Minister said before the election: he said he would be the banker basher in chief. The Chancellor made great play of that in his Budget speech, but the reality is this: last year Labour’s bonus tax raised £3.5 billion—it is in the Red Book—and this year the bank levy raises just £1.9 billion; it is a Tory Government cutting taxes for the banks while they raise taxes for everybody else. He should have used the money from the bank levy to invest in the future jobs fund—which they abolished—to make a real difference to housing in this country and to boost enterprise.
They are failing on growth, and they are failing on living standards too. What did the Prime Minister say before the election to families receiving tax credits? He said that below £50,000 a year, their tax credits were safe. When Labour said otherwise, the Home Secretary said this:
“That is a lie, and it is irresponsible for Labour to be…worrying families needlessly.”
But what is the truth? Next year, over 1 million families with incomes as low as £26,000 will lose all their tax credits. The Government should be ashamed of their broken promises on tax credits.
That is part of the cost of living crisis they are imposing. The Chancellor trumpeted the rise in the personal allowance, and said everybody earning under £35,000 would be better off, but let us look at the facts. He came along in the June Budget and put up VAT, costing families £450 a year. Now he has the nerve to expect them to be grateful when he gives them a fraction of their own money back. What did the Institute for Fiscal Studies tell us this morning? It said:
“there is an awful lot of giving with one hand...and taking away with lots and lots of other hands.”
It is a classic Tory con.
What about their decision on petrol? The Chancellor has done the same thing again. He has cut duty by 1p, but he has whacked up VAT on fuel by 3p. Families won’t be fooled; it’s Del Boy economics. For a two-earner family, both on average wages, it will be 5p up in the basic rate of income tax and just 1p down next year. What do the British people know from history? They know that every Tory tax cut ends up costing them more; same old Tories, same old deceit.
We needed a Budget that changed the direction of economic policy. We needed a Budget that protected the promise of Britain that the next generation does better than the last. We needed a Budget that changed course on cutting too far and too fast. The Chancellor said at the weekend, with his customary modesty, that he had completed his rescue mission of the British economy. After this Budget, it is not the Chancellor who is rescuing the country; it is the country that needs rescuing from the Chancellor. When families look at this Budget—look at the squeeze on their living standards, look at the job losses in their communities—they will conclude: it’s hurting but it isn’t working.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Hugh Dalton, resigned in 1947 for leaking part of his Budget to a journalist when on the way into the Chamber to deliver it. Given that we have heard nothing in the Chancellor’s statement today that had not already been trailed in the media on Monday, Tuesday and this morning, please will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, use the good offices of the Speaker to make sure that senior members of this Government make important statements to the House before going to the media?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The principle is clear, and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. We must now move on.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
This Budget will be judged on whether it keeps us on course to tackle the deficit, and on whether it provides a strategy to improve the long-run performance of the British economy. I will mention a number of concerns about the growth strategy shortly, but first let me say that we all need to be clear about one thing: we as a country are living beyond our means, with £1 in every £4 we spend being borrowed. That overshadows everything else today.
Despite all the clash of party cymbals, the gap between the parties on the scale of the action required to reduce the deficit is not so big; at least two thirds of the adjustment had been signalled by the previous Chancellor in his Budget a year ago, and I regret that he is not in the Chamber at present. It was courageous of him to set out that deficit reduction plan and those spending cuts before the election, but he did it, and today the current Chancellor has stuck to his plans to sort out the public finances. That has taken courage too, and he deserves our full support, as he has done the right thing.
I want to make three further points on the deficit. First, the Government are not reducing public expenditure to dangerous levels. At 40% of gross domestic product by the end of the Parliament, it will be returned to broadly the same level achieved by Labour in 2008. None the less—my second point—the retrenchment will feel more painful from this time on. The consolidation in each of the next three years, at about £25 billion to £30 billion a year, is three times the amount implemented in the first year of this Government.
The third point I wish to make on the deficit is that the pressure to flinch will now mount and we simply must not do so, for at least two reasons. First, doing so would cost the country a fortune in higher debt service costs as markets lost confidence in economic policy. Secondly, doing so would mean that the spending lobbies would have a field day and once they smelt blood the Government’s economic strategy would be put severely at risk.
I wish to say a few words about the growth strategy. Today, the Chancellor announced a comprehensive new approach, containing many measures that we should welcome, not least the large list of deregulation measures he cited, the simplification of planning and the measures to improve access to start-up capital. On all those, it is essential that each part of the strategy is consistent with other parts of public policy. Individually, direct measures always sound attractive, but the test is whether they form a coherent strategy. On those grounds, I warmly welcome what amounts to a new agenda for tax reform to create the most competitive tax system in the advanced world. I particularly support the reductions in corporation tax, which will bring it down to 23% within a few years.
It is an absolute disgrace that the UK now has the longest tax code in the world. The complexity of the system is getting in the way of thousands of small businesses in our constituencies—these are the very people who can take us back to sustained growth. We must have a tax system that allows enterprise to flourish. A few weeks ago, the Treasury Committee published a report setting out the key principles that should underpin tax reform. I can summarise them briefly: let us have more simplicity, let us have more stability and let us have lower rates and fewer reliefs, where possible. I note that in this Budget the Chancellor has abolished 43 reliefs and got rid of 100 pages of the tax code, which is a huge step forward. Let us have less meddling in the tax system as well. The Chancellor appears to have set us out in the right direction and it will be for the Treasury Committee and others to judge whether his proposals match up to the principles set out in our report, which match closely what others in the tax advice industry have concluded as being the right way forward.
The Treasury Committee will also examine who gains and who loses from the Budget. Last year, the Committee demanded an unprecedented amount of detail on the distributional effects of the Budget and the Chancellor responded by publishing more information than had ever been provided by a Chancellor before—I commend him for that. This will be particularly important with respect to the plan to merge income tax and national insurance contributions. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have examined that beguiling idea closely and in the end rejected it, largely because it hits the incomes of certain groups in unexpected ways. Perhaps its time has come, and the Treasury Committee will take evidence on whether the time has indeed come to implement it. We should also examine a number of other proposals that may have long-term distributional impacts, among which is the encouragement of charitable giving with the sizeable extension of gift aid and the inheritance tax reliefs. I hope that the vast majority of us in the House welcome that too.
The Committee will also do its best to examine the coherence of some of the Chancellor’s other measures when set against wider public policies. I can best illustrate that by alluding to points made to me by colleagues in the House in recent months. For example, the Chancellor announced the creation of 21 enterprise zones, which must be designed carefully to ensure that they create jobs and increase overall activity. The risk with such zones will always be that they distort activity at the boundaries and add no new jobs.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful remarks. Does he not agree that the enterprise zones should be extended out of the cities and into towns such as Harlow, which has a strong scientific corridor?
Mr Tyrie
It just crosses my mind that my hon. Friend might have an interest in Harlow. The crucial issue is that if we are to create areas that have special reliefs, we must not inadvertently end up merely moving activity around the country while adding nothing to the overall welfare of UK Inc. That involves a difficult judgment and we need to look extremely carefully at it.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
My hon. Friend will have heard the Chancellor say that discussions will take place on the position in Wales and Scotland. If the Welsh Assembly were not to follow this policy, the existence of an enterprise zone in the Bristol area might result in that very relocation to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr Tyrie
I note what my hon. Friend says and think that careful account needs to be taken of those points.
Another area in which it is important to have coherent policy is on the cost of fuel. This Budget gives some relief on fuel duty rises, with the cancellation of the fuel duty escalator, among other things. However, while motoring bills are being reduced, other Government policies are putting up the cost of energy for a lot for businesses and home owners in other ways, not least through the price of electricity, and the cost of rail travel is also increasing. Does all this—a reduction for motorists, but an increase for rail users and much higher energy bills—form a coherent policy? I do not know, but that needs to be carefully examined, particularly in the light of the Chancellor’s announcement of a floor price for carbon. All these issues need to be carefully examined, because a distortive energy policy will make Britain less competitive, particularly in our export markets.
In our efforts to return to sustained growth, we need to make the best use of every pound invested in our public services. Another example of the need to make sure we have coherence in growth policy has been put to me by colleagues on both sides of the House. They have asked whether spending £17 billion on a high-speed rail link is better use of the money than investing in modern rolling stock and improving the existing tracks. I suspect that millions of rail commuters who cannot currently get a seat and whose trains are unreliable and relatively slow will be interested in the answer to that question. I am very pleased that the Select Committee on Transport has just announced an inquiry into that matter, as a lot of people will await its outcome.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that high-speed rail has the potential to be a profoundly bad economic decision for the whole country?
Mr Tyrie
What I am trying to do is not answer the questions, but pose them for Select Committees and others to try to answer. I am trying to point out that in order to generate a coherent growth strategy, a large number of policies need to be looked at in the round to ensure that we are not wasting public resources.
Mr Love
Does it not concern the hon. Gentleman that nothing has been said in today’s Budget about the centrepiece of the Government’s growth strategy—the national insurance holiday for small companies outside London and the south-east? Should we not know more about how that is going and whether it is, in any way, a success?
Mr Tyrie
That is an interesting point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee will be holding hearings next week and we will have an opportunity to take evidence on exactly that point.
I wish to draw my remarks to a close by observing that growth and the deficit reduction strategy—the two issues I have been discussing—will be one and the same thing if a reduction in the size of government allows room for the private sector to grow. I know that this is not something on which agreement will be reached across the House and that it is the very stuff of party politics, but I hope that Members sitting on the other side of the House will permit me to end with a personal view. Even if there were no deficit, we should still reduce public spending because at close to 50% of gross domestic product it is too high. It reduces choice and freedom for millions of individuals, and it burdens enterprises with unacceptable levels of taxation. During the 13 years of the previous Government, public spending averaged about 40% of GDP. I support this Government’s plans to reduce it to that level again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Many Members want to speak today—quite rightly—and we want to get as many in as possible. There is no time limit on speeches but brevity would help other people.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak early and to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). He made three points that I would like to take up. First, he referred to the reduction in the deficit over the next four to five years and said that he thought that that would cause grave concern and bring great pressure to bear on the Government not to continue with the programme. He is perfectly right: £146 billion will be reduced to £122 billion, which will be reduced to £70 billion, which will be reduced to £26 billion in the years 2015-16. That is a massive and steep drop and will have serious consequences for the public sector, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor did not mention the welfare state or the point on which the hon. Member for Chichester finished his speech, which is the balance between the public and private sectors. We will see a clear imbalance between the public and private sectors as regards the question of whether the public sector can shed jobs and whether they can go into the private sector. That is an interesting point that will be followed closely in the north-east of England, where some 47% of employment is in the public sector. We will then see the difficulties and dangers of moving quickly and rapidly with such a massive debt reduction over four to five years.
Harold Wilson once said that one man’s pay rise was another man’s ticket to the dole queue, but the deficit reduction we are talking about today involves one man’s job passing from the public sector to the dole queue. I must tell the hon. Member for Chichester, since he made the point, that he must remember that those who work in the public sector are producers who pay taxes and consume and to remove them from that sector with such a drastic and rapid reduction in the deficit will not add to the prosperity or standard of living of our people.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Chancellor has announced today that over five years, this Government plan to borrow an additional £485 billion—or a 50% increase in official state debt. They are not paying down the deficit or paying off the debt—they are just trying to borrow a little less each year, but it is still adding a huge amount to the national mortgage.
Sir Stuart Bell
I was much amused when statements were made about how the debt was reduced, how much we had to pay off and how much the Labour Government borrowed. In the month of February, the Government borrowed £11 billion when they should have borrowed £8 billion. It is perfectly correct that we have mixed up the structural deficit with the overall deficit, but public spending will continue to go up. There was a certain sleight of hand from the Chancellor when he made his Budget speech.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting public sector jobs has a direct effect on the private sector? I do not know whether he has seen the study modelling done by Durham university that shows that in the north-east, some 50,000 jobs will go because of public sector cuts, 20,000 of which will be in the private sector.
Sir Stuart Bell
I have seen that study. I have also seen the study by PricewaterhouseCoopers about the impact on the north-east of the various deficit reduction plans.
May I, without in the least way being sycophantic, congratulate the Leader of the Opposition? He made a short and precise speech but he hit every nail on the head that needed to be hit. Growth is down. Snow or no snow, we entered into zero growth in the last quarter. Where is growth going this year? It is at 1.7% for the year. How does that compare with Germany, where there is 3% growth?
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House about when in any recovery from any major asset-based deflation growth has returned within even a five or seven-year period? One thinks of the 1930s, and there was no return to growth until the end of that decade, and of Japan, where there was no return to growth until the beginning of this decade. How can he possibly attribute the situation as regards growth to this Government in such a way?
Sir Stuart Bell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point, because we have argued consistently—and so has the international community—that we had a financial crisis from 2008 and 2009 and that out of that financial crisis, without referring to tsunamis or earthquakes, there have been many aftershocks and it will take much time to get over that. I agree with that point but it was not us who said that we would raise growth last year—it was the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Chichester made an excellent point when he said, quite rightly, that under a Labour Government we had 40% debt in relation to gross domestic product. My recollection is that for some years it was 37% and it was the financial crisis that pushed it up to where it was.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend also say that what is particularly startling today is that, after all the measures we have heard from the Chancellor about in the Budget, the growth forecast has taken place as an after-effect? How bad would the growth forecast have been without those measures? It is still drastically down from what the Chancellor suggested that it would be when he delivered his previous Budget nine or 10 months ago.
Sir Stuart Bell
That is the point that the Leader of the Opposition made. I was reminded by those on the Front Bench—I had not got so far in my speech—that if growth is down, inflation is up. The Chancellor made a point about commodity prices going up. They are going up in France, where inflation is 2%. We have higher inflation because of the Government’s policy. We have depreciated the value of our currency over a period of time by 25%. We have increased our exports but we have also increased our imports. Our imports are still greater than our exports. We are now importing inflation. The difference between French inflation at 2% and our inflation, which will run between 3.5% and 5%, is that we are importing it, because of Government policy.
Unemployment is going up; it is at a 17-year high. The Chancellor made a great thing about 3,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, but he did not refer to all the jobs that have been lost. How many more jobs will be lost when we move into the cuts to local councils that will start on 1 April? How will Middlesbrough council cope with a 28% deficit reduction? How will the national health service cope? We know that we will lose at least 1,000 jobs in Middlesbrough and unemployment in my constituency is disgracefully high. We have the fourth highest unemployment rate in the country and that is wrong. It happened under a Labour Government and under a Tory Government. The cuts that are being announced and those that have been made through the massive deficit reduction programme announced by the Chancellor in his previous Budget will push us further down.
No reference was made, as I have said, to the welfare state. What happened to the welfare state? What happened to the balance between the public and private sectors? What happened to those who are unable to look after themselves? Where was all that in today’s Budget?
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has talked about what is happening in the north-east. In the north-west, we have seen public sector jobs increase by 100,000 between 1999 and 2009, whereas in the private sector, we have seen growth to the tune of 10,000 jobs in the same period. That is completely unsustainable. What are the Opposition’s proposals to address that situation?
Sir Stuart Bell
That might be the figure in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world, but it might not be a figure in other parts of the world.
Let me get back to the point—we created a balance between the public sector and the private sector and we believed that that balance was right for our country. In the north-east of England, when we lost manufacturing jobs, steel jobs, coal jobs and shipbuilding jobs, they were absorbed into the public sector. Those who worked in the public sector created careers for themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made this point: there was a relationship between the public and private sectors. They worked together.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Can he explain why the Government whom he supported were running a structural deficit several years before the financial crisis?
Sir Stuart Bell
We had no difficulty with the structural deficit because we believed in infrastructure projects. We believed in public-private initiatives and off-balance sheet finance, which was exactly the same as what the Germans were doing. At the time, it was thought a fine way of doing things and it is still a fine way of doing things. In my constituency, we got the first public-private initiative in the James Cook university hospital, so we have nothing to regret about what is now called the structural deficit. As I said earlier, the structural deficit is like any other, it is part and parcel of the fullest objective. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was right to say that, while we are tackling that particular deficit, public expenditure in other areas is going up. We need to get the balance right, but that is not happening at the moment.
The Chancellor said that we had moved from fourth in the league of competitiveness to 12th and made a big thing about competitiveness, but he did not mention the eurozone, not surprisingly. He did not mention the conference tomorrow and the day after when the 17 members of the eurozone will get together to create a competitiveness pact. Why are they doing that? Because they wish to increase their growth and exports, and we are in competition with them. We are in competition with Germany and France and we will be in competition with those other countries.
The Chancellor talked about Greece, Portugal and Spain, but why does the fourth-largest economy in the world have to compare itself with Greece, which has a deficit of 150% against gross domestic product, not the 60% or 50% we are talking about? Why does our nation state have to be compared with a small country such as Greece? On that basis, we had £67 billion-worth of deficit reduction in one Budget. Today, the Chancellor was very gracious in saying that, now he has taken all that money out of the economy, he will not take any more out. He might have said, “I’ll do you all a favour: I’ve hit you on the head with one big hammer, so I’m not coming back with another.” How gracious of him to destabilise, within the space of nine months, our economy. That is what he has done and is continuing to do. He will certainly rebalance the economy—away from the welfare state, the public sector and the work force of our country—and he will weaken the fabric of our country. He will weaken the standard of living of all our people.
Jesse Norman
It is not the Chancellor who has associated our economy with those of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, but the international markets. When the Governor of the Bank of England was before the Treasury Committee two weeks ago, he and his team confirmed that without a package of fiscal austerity measures, this country would be borrowing in the international markets at a rate 3% higher than we currently are. That is the Bank’s official position and that is why those difficult measures have been taken.
Sir Stuart Bell
I am not going to go down the route that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer might have gone down at one stage of attacking or criticising the Governor of the Bank of England. That would not be appropriate for me. The advice that was given to the Government, when they came to government, was very severe and we were compared with Greece.
The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) makes an interesting point. At what point in our history did we turn over our economy to the rating agencies instead of saying, “It’s only the rating agencies”. When the rating agencies call the Élysée palace, they have a fit of panic there, asking, “You’re not going to reduce our rating are you?” Why did we, as a nation state, give our economy over to a rating agency—to Fitch, Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s? Where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who stood up and said, “No, I am not going to do that”? The rating agencies had accepted the Labour Government’s deficit reduction plan and were at ease with it. They were happy with the four-year programme and it was the current Government who fell back to the age of Lord Lamont and John Major, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has mentioned, and ideas such as, “If it’s not hurting it’s not working”.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when John Major left office, he left us with no deficit, unlike the previous Government?
Sir Stuart Bell
That is not true and could not possibly be true.
I have just referred to the fact that we borrowed £11 billion in February alone. My point in relation to Lord Lamont and John Major is that if one takes every aspect of the Government’s policy on competitiveness, growth, unemployment and inflation, one sees that they are falling back to where they were in the years between 1979 and 1983 and into 1992. So, it seems that the public sector and the welfare state do not count for much and that what counts is balancing the budget. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Chichester did not go one stage further and say that in five years we might adopt the German approach of balancing the budget completely.
I do not want to hold up the House for much longer, but I want to mention my constituency and say to the Chancellor that we are very grateful that we have an enterprise zone and a local enterprise partnership for Tees valley and that we will work closely with the Government on both of them. The mothballing of Redcar steel mill has been reversed and there is a new buyer taking it over. On Teesside, we will look to the Budget, the LEP, the new enterprise zone and the new steel mill, which will create jobs and bring in £600 million in investment. So, despite the cutbacks and the impact on local councils, the future is bright for Teesside. I am happy to be confident in that future, notwithstanding all the blows that we will take over the next four years.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I remind the House that I offer industrial business advice to a Swedish, quoted international industrial group and investment advice to a British investment company.
Some Opposition Members have expressed displeasure that Government Members should have mentioned the circumstances in Greece and Portugal. The Opposition rightly remind us that we have a much bigger economy than those of Greece and Portugal and I am pleased to say that ours is also currently better managed. Those points are important because our public deficit was larger even than theirs, as a proportion of national income, when the big deficit reduction programme started. I praise my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for seeing that his single, central task, day in, day out, month in, month out, year in, year out—indeed, the five-year burden for all of us in the House—is to get that deficit down before it kills our public finances and our economy.
If anyone thinks there is no risk, I invite them to visit Greece, Portugal or Ireland and see what happens when a country ignores a deficit for the best of reasons and says, “I do want to spend a little more on a good public cause so I will borrow it to spend it.” Of course, we all have great causes on which we would like to spend more money. Borrowing is so often the easy option, but when a country gets to the point at which it is borrowing too much, it does not just destroy the general economy and place too big a burden on those who have to pay the taxes and interest charges—in the end, it brings down the public sector as well, with far bigger cuts and far less favourable choices than we have when we take matters into our own hands by planning a steady deficit reduction.
We are debating, in a relatively civilised atmosphere and in a relatively sane and sensible way, an economic position about which there are strong disagreements. However, there is no overall disagreement about the imperative to avoid big rises in bond rates and interest rates and to get on with some kind of deficit reduction. It is particularly poignant that we are having this debate on the same day that the Portuguese Parliament is meeting to discuss not its first, second or third, but fourth package of emergency, deep, damaging public spending cuts and unaffordable tax increases. Such is the plight that its economy has been driven into by reckless overspending and too much borrowing and, of course, by being in the euro area.
Jesse Norman
Does my right hon. Friend agree that to answer the question of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who asked when the rating agencies took over, one need go no further back than 1949, 1969, and 1976 to 1979, when there were runs on the foreign exchange markets under Labour Governments?
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend is quite right, but the Labour party could point to one or two examples under Conservative Governments, so I do not want to be drawn too far down that historical path. We can see what we need to see by looking at the modern reality. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, fortunately, British bond rates—the rate that we have to pay to borrow money for public purposes—are much closer to those in Germany than those in many other countries in Europe. They are under half the level of those in troubled Portugal. The Portuguese 10-year rates went above 8% today. I stress to beleaguered Portuguese parliamentarians, who are battling over whether a general election is the answer to their problems, that if they do not take dire and immediate action, their country simply will not be able to borrow at an affordable rate of interest. They cannot go on spending the extra 10% of national income that we are spending, which is borrowed, to tide us through and get us to better-managed times.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, having set out a pathway for tackling the deficit, was right to turn to the question of how he can accelerate growth. The truth of the five-year deficit programme is simple: we need well-above-average growth in the last three or four years of the programme to deliver the numbers in the Red Book, which are similar to those in the Chancellor’s first edition of the Red Book last summer.
To remind the House of the scale of the task, the Government plan to spend £70 billion a year more, in cash terms, in the fifth year of the plan—2014-15—than in the last Labour year; that is not a big increase, but there will be pressures because of it. They plan to get the deficit down by increasing the tax revenue collected in the last year of the plan to an eye-watering £175 billion more than in the last Labour year. We believe that we have seen all the important tax rate rises that the Chancellor thinks are needed to do that; the rest depends on the above-average growth that is still in the official forecasts of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Mr Love
As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is laying out why we need a credible reduction in our deficit in the light of the likely market reaction, but is he not concerned about the impact that any austerity programme might have? Although there has been only a limited impact so far in the United Kingdom, as in Greece and as is likely in Ireland, it may be too much, too soon.
Mr Redwood
That is absolutely right. The policies that Ireland, Greece and Portugal are being driven to may well not work because they are excessive, but that is the result of going into the euro and following the market pressures that that inevitably produces. I see some Labour Members trying to pretend that that is nothing to do with them, or looking the other way. I remember being a pretty lonely figure in the ’90s when I said that we should never join the euro. I am pleased that my party now seems to be very broadly of that view, and I believe that the other two principal parties in the House have come round to the view that we certainly should not join the euro any time yet, but we have still to receive apologies from them. Surely they must now accept that if Britain had been driven into the euro, as they wanted, we would have broken the euro and broken ourselves. The euro could scarcely contain small economies the size of Greece, Portugal and Ireland, with their amount of debt; it certainly could not have contained Britain comfortably with the level of debt that the previous Government started to incur. It would have found the British banks over-mighty subjects, just as it is finding the Spanish banks rather difficult to tackle.
Sir Stuart Bell
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman added the words “any time yet” to his remarks about joining the euro, because it is inevitable that, over many years, we will join the euro. Tomorrow and the day after, 17 euro states will get together and put forward a proper plan for competitiveness within the euro. For the first time in our history, the United Kingdom is excluded.
Mr Redwood
If those countries come up with good ideas, we can adopt them, and if they come up with bad ideas, we would be wise to sidestep them; that is exactly the freedom that I and others have argued for passionately over many years, and that the Government wish to enjoy if all goes well.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the reductions could prove difficult. Believe it or not, I did not become a Member of Parliament to have teachers sacked from my schools or doctors sacked from my surgeries; I want them to be well paid and well funded, and I want sensible growth in numbers where there is extra demand. We are all of that view—it is quite misleading of the Opposition to suggest that some of us do not appreciate that and do not want that for our constituents—but it has to be affordable. It has to be within the power of the free enterprise part of the economy to pay for that out of reasonable taxation in a way that does not damage our growth; that is so important.
The Government have managed to find an extra £70 billion of cash spending for the fifth year of the plan, compared with in the start year. It is crucial that we keep public sector costs down, so that the maximum amount possible can go to improving service and quality, and, in some cases, to improving the amount of service, and the minimum goes on extra costs and extra inefficiencies. All parties will say in office that they want more efficiently run public services, but they have to will not only the end but the means. That is why the reforms on which the Government are embarking are so important. It is crucial that the Government listen, and that sensible criticisms be taken on board, but public services have to be reformed so that we can say to people in five years’ time, “You are getting more for that £70 billion. We haven’t had to cut things that really matter, because we have managed things better and have found a bit of extra money.”
Jesse Norman
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous interest in the private finance initiative community in reform of the PFI? A succession of chief executives of PFI companies have asked me, “Why can we not be allowed to save money?” The reason is the enormously expensive procurement process. Not a single school has been built recently that does not have an atrium, and that is because it has been decided that schools, which have nothing to do with corporations, must have corporate atriums. Nothing could be sillier or more resistant to good Government spending.
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend is quite right. Improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of our purchasing is crucial in Government. There are many opportunities; PFI and public-private partnerships provide some good examples, but so does general purchase. It would speed up the deficit reduction if there were a stronger moratorium on purchasing items and supplies where there are already stocks. Any company undertaking the kind of radical turnaround that the country is trying to achieve would immediately freeze all unnecessary purchases and make people run stocks down to save money.
Where I have had answers to my questions on this subject, I have found that the current rate of natural wastage of staff in core Departments is running at about 6% per annum; it was about 4% in the first eight months. Quite a number of those posts have been filled by taking on new people from outside. I urge my friends on the Front Bench to get more of a grip on that, because the easiest way of reducing the administrative overhead on the scale that they want—the least painful way for their staff, who need their morale to be up—is to not replace people who leave and not to make others redundant. We cannot afford the redundancies. If we make greater use of natural wastage, Ministers can say to their staff that it means better opportunities for promotion and a change of job. If the post vacated is not essential, it should be removed; if it is essential, we should appoint someone from inside and remove some other, less important, post. That surely is the civilised, sensible way to tackle the necessary task of cutting the administrative overhead. If the Government can cut their administrative overhead by the very large 30% that they are talking about, it takes the pressure off cuts in the areas where none of us wish to see them—in the schools and hospitals, the front-line services that matter so much.
The question that I was about to ask before the interventions was about the international context. How easy is it going to be for the Government to have the three or four years of above-average growth which are so crucial to the strategy? I must warn those on the Front Bench that I fear that the world background will get more difficult going into 2012 and 2013 than it is at present. There has been a prolonged boom in the emerging market world, and we now see China, India and Brazil lifting their interest rates to very high levels. They are desperately trying to squeeze inflation out of their system, so in a year or so we must anticipate some fall-off in demand and spending power growth rates in those big emerging market economies.
The United States economy will have a good year this year, by the looks of it, on the back of a lot of money printing, low interest rates and other matters. That comes to an end in the middle of this year, so by next year we will see a slower rate of growth in the United States of America as well. Were the situation in the middle east to get worse, and the damage from politics to spread into oilfields outside Libya, we could have another unpleasant external shock on the oil price, which would also serve to impede the growth of the world economy.
The conclusion that I take from this is that the world economy does not look as though it is going to go back into another deep recession—we are not going to have that kind of impossible situation—but the world economy is not going to provide the impetus that it is currently providing. It may not feel that great, but it is providing quite a bit of impetus at the moment. It will provide less impetus next year and beyond. That means that the Chancellor must intensify his pursuit of measures that make the UK that much more competitive and that much more successful.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the importance of improving our export position vis-à-vis the BRIC countries in particular—Brazil, Russia, India and China—and how important a part that could play in our recovery?
Mr Redwood
It is a good point. We have heard figures from the Government indicating that we export less to the BRIC countries combined than we do to Ireland, but we have a close relationship with Ireland and we are close neighbours. It is understandable that we export a lot to Ireland and it to us. That figure conceals one important point, which is that British business has probably been a little more active than it suggests, but for various reasons the larger British companies tend to go into India, Brazil and China and set up joint ventures or factories of their own there to service the local market. It is easier to service those markets in that way, for reasons that we need not go into in detail today, but I agree that it would be good if we exported more, and it would be good if we helped small and medium-sized enterprises that do not have the capability to set up factories on the other side of the world to export in their turn.
The devaluation that happened more than a year ago has given us one nasty result, which is a much higher inflation rate than comparable economies, but it has given us one pleasant result, which is that it is very easy to export out of a British base now because British industry is so much more competitive at the current level of the pound. We should have that on our side. Paradoxically, quite a bit of British business in the manufacturing sector is close to capacity, and those businesses are tending to put the prices up a bit to collect a little more revenue and improve their balance sheets because it is not that easy to expand turnover. That is where the things that the Chancellor is talking about are vital and need to be done speedily.
Britain needs to be able to put up factories more quickly and get them into use more quickly. It needs to define the skilled engineers and the other skilled individuals who want to work in an industrial setting rather than in an advisory or City setting, and then expand the capability of their companies as a result. Modern manufacturing requires a very high degree of skills input, talented people and good management. It does not require so many people to operate machines because really good manufacturing now is highly automated. It needs the precision of expensive machinery. Indeed, the easiest way to compete out of a German or a British base is to have highly automated plant, so labour costs are a rather unimportant part of the total cost. The intellectual property content, the skill content and the plant and equipment content are much higher, but they are affordable with a quality product.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Further to my right hon. Friend’s points, a director from JCB gave evidence to the Select Committee on Education yesterday and said that he had 57 vacancies for engineers that he cannot fill order to ensure that JCB’s products remain globally competitive, reduce energy usage and so on. That, unfortunately, is a legacy of too many years in which we have not delivered the technical, vocational, practical education that is required. Is my right hon. Friend, like me, enthusiastic about the Government taking forward the programme from the Wolf review and supporting Lord Baker with his university technical colleges?
Mr Redwood
I am happy with those proposals. The Government are clearly on the right lines and I hope there will be cross-party agreement that we need to raise our game at skills, training and education, particularly in engineering, pharmaceuticals, chemistry and so forth, where we have an advantage and can have a much bigger advantage if we do more. Yes, we need to review how easy it is to buy or build a factory and how easy it is to equip it. Anything that can be done to lower the effect of tax rate on business will make Britain a much more attractive place to be.
As hon. Members know, I take the view that if we set lower rates, we normally collect a lot more revenue. If we want that kind of growth rate, the lower the realistic rate that we can set, the more revenue growth and the more overall growth we will have. It would be a great tragedy to abort the recovery in certain sectors because the tax rate was too high. I am pleased to see the progress on corporation tax. We need to see the details of some of the individual tax schemes and how the carbon tax rebate would work. If we went ahead as trailblazers in Britain and set a high carbon price, we would price our energy-intensive business out of Britain into a less clean or less acceptable venue. It is important that the rebates and discounts are properly thought through, so that at a time when the Government are trying to promote more industry, they are not taxing it too heavily.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
On the competitiveness of British industry, my right hon. Friend has in the past talked of a cut in regulation being equivalent to a free tax cut. Does he welcome the measures in the Budget to have a low level of regulation for new start-up companies and small companies? Does he share my hope that Europe will become more competitive by reducing the regulatory burden that it seeks to impose on British business and business in other member states?
Mr Redwood
Of course I welcome that. One of the big barriers to entry and to more effective competition for the large companies in Britain is the weight of regulation, which hits anyone who tries to start up a new business. I have done it in the past and I know what it feels like. One has to raise a lot more extra money because for six months to a year one is just trying to comply in many areas before one can trade. Yes, of course we want sensible regulation. We do not believe in an unregulated world. We believe in the law of contract. We believe that people should have a duty of care towards their staff and their customers, but if there are too many and too detailed competing types of prescriptive regulation, it puts people off and they say, “It’s too expensive. I can’t be bothered.”
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
But does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the issue for small business today is not so much regulation as liquidity and lending to SMEs by the banks? A constituent of mine, Alun Richards, is on hunger strike. He had a business with net assets and a limited amount of debt, and Lloyds bank came along and withdrew the debt. Now he is going bankrupt because he has no working capital. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is disgraceful, particularly from a bank that is owned by the taxpayer? Poor old Alun Richards wants to run his business, not to be undermined by the banks. What are the Government doing about that?
Mr Redwood
Of course I agree that if there is a solvent and enterprising business and it is not getting proper banking facilities, that is very bad indeed. It is particularly bad if it is a state-owned or state-influenced bank that is responsible.
My final points are about banking, as time presses and many others want to speak. Of equal importance to the weighty matters covered by the Chancellor today will be the Vickers report and the Government’s response to it. I believe that we will have interim conclusions from Sir John Vickers on 11 April. We are not going to have fast, sustained, above-average growth in this country unless we sort out the banks a little more than we have done so far. All colleagues in the House are united in having individual cases where they feel a company could have been saved or could have grown more rapidly if only there had been more sympathetic or understanding bank managers and facilities. There is a problem with British banking serving the SME sector town by town, county by county. There is a lot of talent in the banks, concentrated at the national level and in the big national accounts. Many hon. Members like to knock those people, but they made an important contribution to the growth rate under the previous Government and to our economy.
Andrea Leadsom
In the last quarter of 2010, lending to the SME sector dropped by 38% from the last quarter of 2008. One of my big concerns is that this reflects the incredible concentration of SME lending among the four or five largest banks, which are responsible for around 90% of all SME lending. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work of the Vickers commission and the Treasury Committee should focus on breaking up the oligopolistic positions of some of those big banks?
Mr Redwood
I certainly hope that when we see the Vickers report and have a proper debate on it we will be able to find sensible ways of promoting much more competition in the domestic banking market. We need more competition on the high street for individuals and families and more competition in town centres for SMEs, which in previous generations probably had better and more direct relationships with local bank managers, who had a bit more authority to grant loans and make money available on judgment than is currently the case through the box-ticking, centralised computer systems.
Geraint Davies
In that case, and given the last intervention, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the Budget should have introduced tax relief or tax credits for individuals wanting to invest in SMEs, because venture capitalists want too high a return and the banks are failing the small business sector? We want an inclusive economy. Surely there should have been some support for SMEs so that we could all invest in small businesses more effectively.
Mr Redwood
That is exactly what the Budget contained. I think there was a revamped and revised enterprise investment scheme and an improvement in the capital gains treatment for successful entrepreneurs. It is always nice for new people setting up small businesses to be able to dream, and why should those of them who are successful not keep the proceeds if they have created jobs and done so much?
The outcome of the Budget will depend on two important considerations: whether we can put enough measures in place along the lines that the Chancellor has laid out for promoting growth; and whether there is a happy and sensible resolution to the banking problems as they affect SMEs and the wider public in Britain. There has been much discussion of the big banks, the investment banks and all those sorts of issues, but we now need to laser in on how the banks serve local communities and the SME sector. We need a more pro-competitive answer. I have some thoughts on how we could do that, but will not detain the House with them because today is not the day for that. However, without such measures the Budget will find it difficult to deliver the very large figures for increased revenue on which the whole plan rests.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate being called so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Northern Ireland we are in competition with neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal Democrats when it comes to elections, so I suppose I can afford to be a little more objective in my assessment of the Budget. As we know, the allies of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland have now abandoned them, and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who had some association with the Lib Dems, has abandoned them since coming to the House, so I hope that I can be objective on this.
The Chancellor made it clear in his speech today that his ambition for the Budget is that it should promote growth in the economy, and I wish him well in that. Coming from a part of the United Kingdom where growth has been most sluggish and, as a result, unemployment is rising faster than in any other part of the UK, I know that success for the Chancellor will mean success for our economy. It will reduce the deficit so that huge resources will not go simply on paying interest, put people back into work, increase living standards and, in the long run, provide funding for vital public services.
I wish the Chancellor well in that, but I think it is a little ironic that the Budget has been headlined as a Budget for growth, because one of its major statistical announcements is that growth forecasts have been downgraded once again. Indeed, the Chancellor optimistically indicated last June, and again in October, that the measures he would undertake would give us growth of around 2.5% or 2.3%, but in the six months since then we have had a 33% reduction in his forecast. There is a certain degree of irony in that, which is one of the reasons I believe that some of the criticisms that have come from the Opposition about the speed and depth of deficit reduction have some merit. I remember that when I used to teach economics I would say that there are always two sides to the economic growth coin. First, there is the question of how to increase the economy’s potential to produce more. If we do not increase potential, once demand goes up, all we get is inflation, or we will suck in imports.
The Chancellor outlined a number of measures today—I will not go through them all—some of which are contradictory. The measure that he held out as the beacon at the start of his speech was the decrease in corporation tax, which he argued will give firms the ability to keep more profits and, therefore, the opportunity to invest in new equipment, new markets or research and development. According to the Red Book, the decrease in corporation tax should put £1.075 billion into the coffers of companies over the next five years, so it could certainly be argued that the Chancellor has released resources for companies to invest if they choose to do so.
However, on the next page we see that, as a result of wanting to be a trendy green, or I suspect of looking for a stealth tax, he is imposing a carbon floor price. By 2015, all the additional revenue that firms will have from the decrease in corporation tax will be more than absorbed in the carbon price floor tax—£1.41 billion. On the surface, the measure appears to be a way of releasing resources to companies, but closer examination shows that companies will not be much better equipped.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the whole purpose of a carbon tax is to incentivise firms to change their behaviour so that those that do change their behaviour by producing goods more sustainably will pay less carbon tax and benefit from reduced corporation tax and those that do not will pay more?
Sammy Wilson
That is clearly not what the Chancellor intends, because he hopes to raise £1.4 billion. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this is all about changing behaviour so that firms do not get the money, there is an immediate hole in the figures the Chancellor is presenting to the House today. I suspect that it is not all about that at all, but is another way of raising tax. What appears on the surface to be a good supply-side measure will be more than offset by some of the other measures undertaken. Of course, the kinds of firms that are most likely to be hit by this are the very firms that the Chancellor says he wishes to promote: those in manufacturing industry. The service industry will not be hit by those measures as much as manufacturing will, and, given Northern Ireland’s reliance on gas and oil to fuel and power manufacturing industry, and the fact that our energy costs are already higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, that will gravely disadvantage manufacturing firms in Northern Ireland, at the very time when the Executive in Northern Ireland is trying to rebalance the economy.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that he would provide a more objective analysis, and I was excited by that. In that vein, does he accept that the Chancellor’s announcement that, for the first time, as a major departure from corporation tax policy, he would consider a separate tax rate for Northern Ireland, making the whole Province an enterprise zone, is very welcome and could help with some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is pointing out?
Sammy Wilson
I wish to come to that point later, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that my comments so far, at least, have been objective, because they are based on the figures that the Chancellor has provided.
The Chancellor talked about another measure today for encouraging growth, the enterprise zones that the hon. Gentleman mentions. When we look at the figures in the Red Book, however, we find that in the first year, 21 enterprise zones will eventually be in place but the money made available to businesses as a result of tax exemption will amount to £20 million. By the final year, the figure will be £80 million, and I do not know whether £4 million in each zone will generate a great deal in additional output.
Mr Kevan Jones
In 2009-10, the budget for the nine regional development agencies in the UK was £2.2 billion.
Sammy Wilson
That probably puts it all in perspective. The measure looks good in the Chancellor’s speech, but, when one looks at the resources that it releases, which in turn are supposed to increase the willingness of firms to invest and the productive potential of the economy, one sees just how miniscule it is, and we have to judge whether it will make a very great impact.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise as the Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland, and I congratulated him on the production of his budget there just a few weeks ago. Does he share my concern at the response from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, during Northern Ireland questions? When asked about the enterprise zone and the real substantive changes, he said that it was really a phrase he had been using to “cover”—that is the word he used—the idea of Northern Ireland being more open for business in relation to corporation tax. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, in Northern Ireland, there might not be much substance to that phrase?
Sammy Wilson
My fear is that, not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom, the measure will be more like a branding exercise and good for a soundbite, rather than something that will have any real impact. I hope that the measure has an impact, but, if I look at the amount of resources that will go into the zones, and at what really is required to lift such areas, I fear that it will not.
Other changes have been mentioned, such as those to the tax structure, and I noted what the Chancellor said, but some of them might not include extensive consultation—the issue is complex—and might be years away. So, again, they look good in the Budget, but what is the immediate impact going to be?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On that point, it is interesting to look at the changes to national insurance contributions, which are forecast to have an impact right out to 2016, because they show that the proposed bringing together of the two taxes—national insurance and income tax—will not happen for at least five years.
Sammy Wilson
I hope I am not quoting the Chancellor wrongly, but I think he talked about nine years in the future before those changes have an impact, so again we have to ask, “What is the impact going to be?”
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor missed a vital opportunity for the Northern Ireland economy today? Does my hon. Friend think it right that a £7.5 billion loan from the British Exchequer to the Government of the Irish Republic should be used to enable that Government to abolish air passenger duty, which in turn gives them an unprecedented competitive edge on flights, bearing in mind that it impacts on my constituency and the international airport in it?
Sammy Wilson
I am a bit miffed, because I wanted to use that point later in my speech, so I will have to scribble it out. When we look at some of the issues, whether they are the delays, the amount of money being put in, the offsetting of increases in taxation when some tax cuts have been made, the regulations or the consultation that has still to take place with Europe to see whether we can reduce red tape, we have to ask whether the predictions for future growth based on the supply-side measures in the Budget are as fragile as the autumn predictions that were wiped out by a fall of snow. If that is how fragile the predictions are, then I have concerns.
There is another side to the coin, because not only do we have to increase the productive potential of the economy, but people must be willing to purchase the goods that can be produced, and aggregate demand can be made up of several different factors. The Government have already ruled out one for very good reasons, and I accept that the deficit has to be reduced. I may have some issues about how quickly it is being reduced, but the one thing we do know is that Government spending is not going to take up the slack that already exists in the economy.
Consumer spending is not going to take up the slack, either, because the Chancellor made it quite clear that he would not make any tax giveaways. Indeed, if one looks at what he said about the indexation of direct taxes, one finds that he has now built automatic increases into the tax system for the next four years. There will not be discretion on a year-to-year basis; inflationary increases are now built into the tax system.
That leaves investment demand and exports, and it seems that the Chancellor is emphasising the role of exports. Given that over the past year and a half the exchange rate has fallen by 20%, our export growth is still one of the weakest among the OECD countries. Investment might improve competitiveness, but the only direct measure that the Chancellor has produced today is the export credit guarantee. I have quickly looked through the Red Book to see how much the guarantee involves, and I cannot get a figure, but that is the only measure to increase the one component of aggregate demand on which the Chancellor is relying to improve growth in the economy.
If we look at the supply-side measures and the lack of demand-side measures, we have to ask, “Can we really be confident that this is a Budget for growth?” The conclusion that I come to—not because I want to take a pot-shot at the Government, but because I want to get in behind the figures to see whether the hope being held out is genuine—is that I am left with some concerns.
Mr Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to be sombre because of the situation the country is in. The Chancellor mentioned what is happening in other countries, and we are in a fragile position because of the appalling inheritance. The growth predictions, however, are no longer the predictions of a politician; they are the predictions of the OBR. We are in a very fragile state, and it is no wonder that predictions change, but the prediction is that over this Parliament this country’s growth will be higher than the EU average. That, considering where we started, would not mean golden times, but it would be a solid achievement.
Sammy Wilson
Of course, the earlier growth figures were also OBR-ified, if one wants to use that term, yet they did not prove to be realisable over a six-month period. We cannot simply rely on the assurances that the OBR has looked at the figures and thinks they are okay, as there could well be a revision. I am merely pointing to some aspects within the Budget document that give me cause for concern as to whether these growth figures can be achieved. If they cannot, there are implications for the deficit, for employment, for living standards, and for the ability to provide public services in future.
Let me turn to some of the measures that apply to Northern Ireland. As we heard in an earlier intervention, tomorrow morning an announcement will be made about the corporation tax proposals for Northern Ireland. I am waiting to see that. I have no doubt that the ability of the Northern Ireland Administration to reduce corporation tax could be a useful lever. As a Unionist—I know that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) will probably be totally appalled that anyone from a devolved Administration should say this—I do not want to see huge fiscal powers devolved to Northern Ireland. I am part of the United Kingdom, I want to remain part of the United Kingdom, and I wish fiscal powers to stay part of the United Kingdom.
There has been a groundswell of opinion for some variation in corporation tax; indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been very enthusiastic about it. However, there is no point in devolving corporation tax if the price tag attached is such that it savages public expenditure, which has already suffered a huge cut as a result of the Budget decisions made last October. There would be a gestation period between a reduction in corporation tax and the impact on jobs on the ground, whereas any cut in public spending or in the block grant would take immediate effect. There would be no increase in private sector employment, together with an immediate decrease in public sector employment, and that cannot be good for economic recovery.
I fear that the figures in the document that we have tomorrow will be neither a fair reflection of the cost of devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland nor the kind of opportunity and offer that would be attractive to the Northern Ireland Administration. We will want to see that the Treasury and the Government have not made a savage reduction in the block grant even though it bears no relation to what the real cost of devolving corporation tax might be.
Mr Dodds
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a supreme irony in the fact that as part of the conditions for the bail-out of the Irish Republic—£6 billion of UK taxpayers’ money—the Irish Republic insisted that its corporation tax rate would stay at 12.5%, yet Northern Ireland, which, uniquely within the United Kingdom, is in direct competition with the Irish Republic, would be allowed to reduce its corporation tax but would not receive any similar subsidy from the UK Treasury, whereas the subsidy is going directly to the Irish Republic?
Sammy Wilson
We can see how the bail-out of the Irish Republic conflicts with what is happening in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) mentioned air passenger duty. I am disappointed about this because the Chancellor could have done something about it. In particular, the one flight between Northern Ireland and North America is very important in attracting not only tourists but inward investment. A sum of £2.1 million would have ensured that that flight continues, yet the Chancellor did not find that he could allow for regional variation. There are precedents for that because regional variations are allowed for Scotland. The irony is that the Irish Government, using the £7.5 billion that was obtained from the United Kingdom, are now going to abolish air passenger duty, which places them at an even more positive advantage regarding the service that flies from Northern Ireland.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Irish Government had made the decision about air passenger duty before any loan facility was agreed with the UK Government—and I stress that it is a loan facility?
Sammy Wilson
I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman should want to apologise for the Irish Republic, which is in direct competition with the economy of the area that he represents, but we will leave it to his constituents to question him about that.
The Chancellor has made much of the fuel duty escalator. Northern Ireland does not have the highest fuel prices in the United Kingdom, but it certainly has the second highest, and we also have the problem of the border with the Irish Republic. I would have hoped that the Chancellor would come through on the promise that he made when he was in opposition. We have a promise that future price increases will be deferred, but the impact on current prices will be very slight. That leaves Northern Ireland, with its high dependence on road transport for its manufactured goods and its dispersed rural nature, at a disadvantage.
I acknowledge that the Government have responded to some developments recently. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the aggregates levy and the allowance that has been made. I welcome the fact that the loan facility for the Presbyterian Mutual Society has been built into the Budget. In his concluding remarks, the Chancellor said that he would put the fuel in the tank of the British economy so that it could drive forward. I may be about to show my age, but I hope that it is a tiger in the tank so that we finish up with a tiger economy. I fear that we are going to run out of fuel very quickly, and we will all be poorer for it.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I should like to draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in case I stray into the subject of property or something similar.
The situation at the end of the previous Government’s time in office was unprecedented in international terms. The way that they handled things in their last 18 months was not too bad. They went down to 0.5% interest rates, allowed the automatic stabilisers to come in, and allowed the pound to devalue, as we could because we still control our own monetary policy. Everything possible was done to adjust to the dire situation in the banking system.
To be less complimentary, the regulatory regime that allowed the banks to do some of the things that they did was set by the former Prime Minister when he was Chancellor by taking powers away from the Bank of England. That was a retrograde step, and I am glad that the current Government are reviewing it. Before we hit trouble, the deficit was 3%, whereas the German economy had a surplus of 3%. The difference that we can see today is that the Germans have a deficit of 5% or 6%, while we have one of nearer to 10%. That means that the adjustments we will have to make over the next four or five years will be much more difficult, and it will take longer to get there.
Mr Kevan Jones
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about bank regulation, but he has a very short memory, because I remember being in this House when the current Chancellor and Prime Minister were calling for more light-touch regulation of the financial industry, not for more regulation, as they seem to be doing now.
Mr Syms
It was nothing to do with light-touch regulation; in fact, we needed more competent regulation. The Financial Services Authority was not up to the job, and the Bank of England would have done a better one.
The key thing is that we now have a great imbalance in our economy. Over the long term, Britain has always tended to have public spending of about 40% of GDP, taxation of about 40% of GDP, and a national debt of about 40% of GDP. We have always managed to grow and export, and to be a fairly successful economy. We now have to yank public spending and the deficit back to those sorts of levels. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, even after five or six years, we will only be back down to where we were towards the end of the Labour Government when we had to go into deficit to deal with the difficult economic situation.
I think that the Government’s response is sensible. It is planned over five or six years, and is gradual. For all the talk of expenditure cuts, the expenditure cuts will be gradual over that period. The plan, as the Chancellor set out today, is for the economy to grow. That should generate more tax revenue. The difficulty, of course, is that we will have to raise taxation, as can be seen in the plans, to help balance the budget. I hope that that is more of a short term, rather than a medium to long term thing, because we need to build incentives back into the British economy.
Helen Goodman
On that point, has the hon. Gentleman not noticed that table 2.1 on page 42 of the Red Book shows that, over that period, personal tax allowances will increase substantially, because the switch to CPI and the changes to national insurance outweigh significantly—by several hundred million pounds—the increase in personal allowances that the Chancellor made? This is a tax-raising Budget, not a neutral Budget as he said.
Mr Syms
The key fact is that the Government whom the hon. Lady supported left us with massive debts. There is no honest or honourable way in which we can deal with that problem, other than taking tough decisions, which will involve many of our constituents paying considerably more money. Over the next five years, unfortunately, more money will come in through taxation. There is no way around that. That is the legacy that Labour has left us. If we want to be responsible, to get the economy back into balance and to have long-term economic growth, we have no choice but to take tough measures.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government were the worst villains in fiscal drag that this country has ever seen? They failed to raise thresholds year after year, and dragged many taxpayers into higher income tax brackets.
Mr Syms
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I welcome what the Chancellor has done with the personal allowance and the £10,000 target. If a central part of the Government’s plans is welfare reform, it is inevitable that we must reduce the tax on the lowest-paid. Otherwise, we will not get people off welfare and into work, which I think is what all of us want.
I will touch on one or two measures, but I do not want to take up too much time. I welcome the Government’s plans to assist the housing market. I wish they had gone farther, because there is a lot of capacity in the housing market, which could provide more jobs and help to get the economy going. However, what the Chancellor announced was very good.
I welcome the Chancellor’s proposals on charities. Poole has one of the biggest charities in the UK, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which raises a considerable amount of money from bequests. People getting relief on inheritance tax will be a major boost to that charity and to many others.
I welcome the move back to enterprise zones, because we have to become an enterprise economy. One lesson of the last decade is that we do not want to rely on an overheated south-east and London. We must ensure that future growth is balanced so that it occurs in greater Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and many of our great provincial cities. What the Chancellor announced will assist in that.
The Government are doing what they can to help people, with limited room for manoeuvre, by putting off the fuel duty rises and freezing council tax. We have a difficult inheritance and the Chancellor has precious little room for manoeuvre. He started his Budget speech by saying that this is basically a neutral Budget. I think that it is right to have a neutral Budget. In some respects, it would be better not to have a Budget at all, but just to let the long-term plans of the Government roll on. That gives the best hope of getting the economy sorted, and of restoring growth to the British economy.
We have heard debate about the OBR forecasts. They are forecasts and will change several times before we know what the situation is. I think that we have an excellent chance over the next four or five years to get growth. I think that the Government’s strategy is right. They are concentrating on training and simplifying the tax code. Hopefully, when we can, we will start to reduce the rates.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
At the end of every Budget speech, the Chancellor has to pull a rabbit out of the hat. I will begin my remarks on the rabbit that I was not expecting today. It is something that will affect my constituency. Because I have been sitting in the Chamber since the Chancellor made his speech, I have not been able to quantify exactly how it will affect my constituency, but I have great fears that it might have a devastating effect.
I should explain that as a Member for Aberdeen, the economy of my constituency is based on the offshore oil and gas industry. I should also explain that I am the chair of the all-party group on the offshore oil and gas industry. Aberdeen has survived the downturn probably better than anywhere else, because the oil industry has been fairly buoyant. Unemployment in my constituency has risen from only 1.9% to 2.5%. I appreciate that that will sound very good to many Members. I fear that because of the rabbit that the Chancellor pulled out of his hat, that may not continue.
I speak, of course, about the fair fuel stabiliser. I think that that has the potential to destabilise the offshore oil and gas industry quite dramatically. I appreciate that the Chancellor was looking for something so that he could bring down fuel prices. However, it appears from the Red Book that huge amounts of money will come from the North sea. Apart from in the financial year 2011-12, in which the amount that will be given back to the taxpayer is £1.9 billion and only £1.78 billion will come in from the North sea from the increase in the supplementary charge, in every other year more will be raised by the Exchequer from the North sea oil and gas industry than the Chancellor will give away by bringing down petrol prices.
Helen Goodman
I also noticed that very interesting line in table 2.1—line 28. It shows that the proposed revenue stream is the same in every year. However, as the Chancellor said, that will depend on the oil price. Unless he is absolutely confident that the oil price will remain at the same level throughout the period, these are completely unfounded forecasts and estimates.
Dame Anne Begg
Indeed, if the oil price goes up, the amount that the Chancellor gets will go up. These must at best be guesstimates. Therein lies the problem for the offshore industry. The North sea is a mature province, but there is still a lot of oil left. In fact, there are probably as many known oil reserves in the North sea today as there were in the 1970s, but they are much harder to reach and more challenging to get out of the ground. The one thing that the offshore oil and gas industry needs is stability—stability in what the Chancellor is going to do. The last time the tax revenues for the offshore industry were changed, by the last Labour Government, there was a slowdown in the industry for a good two years before it recovered. The industry complained about the unexpected nature of that change and the fact that it was not able to plan for it. This change comes into effect from 12 o’clock tonight, so it will come as a huge shock to the offshore sector that it will be affected.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend recognise, given her expertise on the oil industry, that investment in exploration is long term? In some of the fields that she is talking about, planning and investment can take up to 10 years. A fluctuating oil price will make such decisions very difficult. That will have a direct impact on Tyneside and Teesside, which are strongly supported by the supply industry for North sea oil.
Dame Anne Begg
I could not agree more. In fact, I believe that 200 constituencies have 50 jobs or more that are directly related to the supply chain of the offshore industry. The change will come as a big shock out of the blue, and I do not think people are prepared for it.
As my hon. Friend suggests, in its long-term planning, the offshore sector tends to use an oil price of between $50 and $60 a barrel. In other words, it projects a stable oil price in its forward planning. That is clearly not the real situation, because sometimes the price dips below that level and sometimes, as at the moment, it goes up to $100 a barrel. The fluctuation of the oil price makes the sector’s long-term planning difficult, and the Chancellor has added another factor that will fluctuate, making the situation even less stable. To call it a fair fuel stabiliser is a complete misnomer.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Like the hon. Lady, I represent an area in which the oil and gas industry is prevalent. Does she agree that the measures that the Chancellor has taken today deal with the problem that arises when there is effectively a windfall for companies because of oil prices? In the long run, the change will be neutral to the taxpayer and the companies will not be at a loss. It just deals with what are effectively windfall profits that they have received because of the current high oil prices, to the benefit of the consumer.
Dame Anne Begg
With all due respect, that is not how the Chancellor has sold it. Even if there has been a windfall, perhaps it would have been better had he given some warning of the change so that people in the oil industry in particular could have taken account of it in their planning.
When we look at the Red Book, we see that the change is not tax-neutral. It states that by 2012-13, the tax raised will be £2.2 billion, and that it will be £2.1 billion the following year. The Chancellor is expecting to raise more than £2 billion a year—a much larger amount than is being given back to the consumer who buys petrol at the pump. Line 6 on page 42 of the Red Book shows that the Chancellor is taking more from the offshore oil and gas industry than from the banks, by a factor of 10.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. The other interesting thing in those numbers is that whereas the Chancellor claimed that the banks would not benefit from the corporation tax change, we can see from the Red Book that corporation tax reliefs will rise over the period in question but the bank levy will absolutely collapse.
Dame Anne Begg
Indeed, the bank levy will come down to just £100 million by 2015-16.
The change to the oil and gas charge has come as a bit of a shock, and it worries me. From looking at the Red Book, I am getting more and more worried about what the Chancellor has announced today. The Red Book states:
“The Supplementary Charge on oil and gas production will therefore increase to 32 per cent from midnight tonight.”
There was no warning, and it will have come as a big shock to the industry. The effect could be dramatic in my constituency. I only hope that the Chancellor has thought the matter through and had some discussions with the industry. I suspect he has not, and I am worried about what will happen.
I wonder what other nasties are lurking in the Red Book. Last time it was the 10% sanction on housing benefit when someone had been out of work for a year, which we did not discover until days afterwards. I am glad that the Government have backed down on that and that today’s Red Book shows that money again.
From a cursory glance at the Red Book, I discover something that comes as a bit of a surprise to those of us who were here for Prime Minister’s questions today. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister why the Government were taking the higher-rate mobility component of disability allowance from people living in residential care. Those who were here will remember that the Prime Minister replied, “We are not”—a simple, straightforward answer. However, line d on page 44 of the Red Book is about the plan to
“remove mobility components for claimants in residential care from April 2013”,
with a figure of £155 million to be saved. That is different from the last Red Book, which stated that the change would come in in 2011-12 and save £135 million. All that the Government have done is delay it by two years. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the change is still in the Welfare Reform Bill, and here it is in the Red Book. Perhaps the Prime Minister might want to come to the Chamber and apologise for not having been as accurate as he might have been.
Richard Fuller
For clarification, has the hon. Lady checked the following page, page 45, which mentions the disability living allowance reform gateway funds, which will kick in at £360 million in 2013-14 and rise to £1.45 billion? How does that match the figures that she has given, if at all?
Dame Anne Begg
They do not match, because they are totally different things. In fact, the Prime Minister did not quite understand that. The DLA gateway is about tightening up the criteria for those coming on to DLA. That will come in with the introduction of personal independence payments. The reform of the gateway is totally different from taking DLA away from people who live in residential care. By any criteria, such people would qualify to get through the gateway. The Government have decided that they will not get the money because they live in residential care, not because they do not fit the criteria.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. I am sure she will recognise that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who share concern about the continuation of the mobility component of DLA. I believe that Ministers are looking for a way to both maintain the mobility component and expand personal payments, so that people with disabilities who live in care homes continue to receive the funding that they require for a decent living. If that is not included in the Budget, I will be very interested to talk to her about it.
Dame Anne Begg
What I have said is based on a cursory glance at the Red Book, but the evidence from the Welfare Reform Bill, which states that those in residential care will not get higher-rate mobility DLA, and from the Red Book makes it appear that the Government still intend to take the mobility element away from such people, albeit two years later. Those of us who said that the proposal was unfair thought we had won the battle, but it now appears that we have not won it at all. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because I know that Members of all parties objected to the proposal. I hope that he will put pressure on his Government to reconsider the matter.
I wish to say a wee bit about the merging of national insurance and income tax. It was trailed slightly in the press, but we needed to find out what it meant in reality. The Chancellor said it would not be the end of the contributory principle, but it is very hard to see how it cannot be. There needs to be a debate about the future of that principle, because other measures that the Government have taken have undermined it. People are quite shocked about what is happening, having paid their national insurance all their lives thinking that they were paying into an insurance scheme and that they would get money out of it when something went wrong. People get only six months’ jobseeker’s allowance of £65 a week as a result of their NI contributions when they are unemployed. Under the Welfare Reform Bill, people will get only one year’s sickness benefit under the new employment and support allowance as a result of such contributions. Most people assume that they get the basic state pension because of their NI contributions. That is the big one, because people are quite happy to pay their NI contributions for that, but the Government plan to introduce a flat-rate, £140 a week state pension. Such contributions pay for the basic state pension state and the earnings-related pension scheme as well as pension credit, and everything then gets divided out.
It is difficult to see how pensions can be based on a contributory record, as the Red Book says they are, if everybody gets the same. The Work and Pensions Secretary said a couple of weeks ago that he will introduce the flat-rate pension, and that that will help women, but it will do so only if it is not dependent on contributions. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either people get the flat-rate pension based on their working record and NI contributions, which will be part of income tax, or they get it because they have fulfilled other criteria, such as residency. The country and all parties in the House need a proper debate on how we fund welfare, the basis of our welfare system, and the future of the contributory principle.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats take pensions very seriously. I acknowledge that a lot of consultation and working out must be done, but does the hon. Lady welcome a basic state pension of £140 a week?
Dame Anne Begg
I advocated a universal or citizens pension as a Government Member for many years, but one strong argument against such a pension is that many people are very attached to the contributory principle. That came out in the original discussions, when the Government of the day decided to reduce the state pension qualifying years down to 30 for both men and women.
Part of the problem in this country is that we have no means other than NI contributions by which to determine who should qualify for a state pension, because we do not keep residency records, which is how the judgment is made in, for instance, New Zealand. The problem in this country is more complex than it may seem.
The state pension age is about to go up to 66 for men and women by 2020. This was meant to be a Budget for growth, but the very first thing the Chancellor spoke of was the downgrading of the growth figures. I am worried about where all the jobs will come from given the increased number of people in the workplace. The numbers in the work force are expected to increase because of the new work obligations on jobseeker’s allowance claimants; because lone parents will be expected to look for work when their youngest child is five; because 30% of incapacity benefit claimants will be assessed as fully fit for work and expected to go into the workplace; and because another 30% of such claimants will end up in the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance. Huge numbers of people are expected to go into the workplace. It is difficult to get figures on how many more people will be looking for work because the Department for Work and Pensions could not give them to us, but on top of those, the raising of the state pension age means that even more people will be looking for work.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Chancellor trumpeted the extension of support for mortgage interest, but has my hon. Friend seen page 42 of the Red Book, which says that that will continue for 2012-13, but decrease in 2013-14 to £15 million and then to zero in 2014-15?
Dame Anne Begg
I was going to talk about housing, but I could speak for another three hours if I go down that route, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall resist.
Will older people who have not reached state pension age be in work or not? At the moment, only 30% of men are still in work aged 65—not only because of early retirement and other things, but because people lose their jobs towards the end of their working lives—but they will be expected to work another year. Only 47% of women aged 60 are still in work, but they will be expected to work for another six years. Those people will not necessarily get anything under the universal credit, because they will probably have saved a nice little nest egg—a nest egg of just over £16,000—to see them through retirement. They will not get jobseeker’s allowance—or rather, they might get it for six months, but that is all they will get through the contributory principle. If they have fallen out of work because of ill health, the most that they might get is a year of employment and support allowance before then getting nothing. Those are big figures, and that is where a lot of the welfare reform savings in the Red Book will come from.
Indeed, it is perhaps worth alerting the House to the fact that the big savings in welfare reform do not come from getting “shirkers” back into work; they come from taking money from those who would normally have got contributory incapacity benefit, but will now get only contributory employment and support allowance for a year. That means that around £80 a week will come out of those people’s incomes. They will get nothing else if they live in a household with someone in work or with any other source of income, or if they have a small pension or savings of more £16,000. Therefore, there will be a new group of people struggling, and they will not be old-age pensioners; they will be pre-old-age pensioners, as it were. They are people who have fallen out of work, but not been able to work to 66 and get their state pension. They have been left with little—in fact, in some cases nothing—from the safety net that we think the welfare state is there to provide.
There is a lot more that I could say; indeed, I am sorry that I have spoken for longer than I intended. Over the coming days I will go through Red Book in a lot more detail than I have managed to today. However, from what I have seen already, there is a great deal for people to be concerned about in what the Chancellor has announced today.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
This is, of course, the second Budget of the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition Government. The first Budget was put together in the extraordinary circumstances that followed the 2010 general election, when the two parties came together to co-operate in government and clear up the mess left by the Labour Government. In that Budget we dealt with the emergency, and set out a plan to restore fiscal credibility and put Britain back on track. Today we begin the next phase of this coalition Government. Over the next four years we will build a stable economic future, with growth in our economy that is regionally balanced, encourages innovation, and is green and sustainable. We have moved from the rescue stage. We are now on to recovery, and we look forward to reform.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
When the hon. Gentleman stood for election last year and his leader said that making deep and fast cuts in public services would be dangerous, did he believe it? If he did, but then came to a different view, what made him change his mind?
Stephen Williams
I would remind the hon. Lady that we can all be selective with quotations from different party leaders or finance spokesmen in the general election. Indeed, we could do that all round the Chamber. I well remember the leader of my party saying that there would need to be “savage cuts” in public expenditure to deal with the desperate circumstances that whoever won the general election would have to deal with. He was heavily criticised for using the phrase “savage cuts”; none the less, he gave a stark warning that was also timely and well made.
Despite those circumstances, we—and in particular the Liberal Democrats in the coalition—have endeavoured to ensure that all the measures that we put in place, whether in the emergency Budget, the spending review or the Budgets to come, are underpinned by fairness. It is important that we recognise people’s concerns about the cost of living and the pressures on their household budgets. That is why today Liberal Democrats in particular welcome the further step taken towards our main manifesto commitment of ensuring that nobody on an income of less than £10,000 should face an income tax bill. From April this year, almost 900,000 people will be taken out of income tax altogether, with all average earners getting a tax cut of £200. In a year’s time, 1.1 million lower-paid people will be taken out of the income tax net altogether, leading to a tax cut for everyone on average earnings of £326 a year. This measure will, as we always pledged, help the poor and reward work.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I warmly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about taking low-paid people out of tax. Does he agree that it ill behoves the Opposition to criticise these measures, given that Labour’s contribution was to get rid of the 10p tax rate and import more than 1 million unskilled, low-wage workers from eastern Europe over 13 years to undercut the pay and conditions of the poorest people in this country?
Stephen Williams
I well remember sitting on the Opposition Benches during the final Budget of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and being one of those who spotted the fact that the tax cut being given to higher-rate taxpayers and the cut in capital gains tax, which were cheered by Labour Members at the time, were effectively being funded by a tax rise for the poorest people in society that doubled their rate of income tax from 10p in the pound to 20p.
People are also rightly concerned about their household budgets as a result of high fuel prices. You and I will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is difficult now to find petrol or diesel costing less than 130p a litre anywhere in the city of Bristol. Even the local fuel station in my constituency is now charging 140p for diesel. I therefore welcome the measures to address those concerns by reducing fuel duty by 1p and by stopping Labour’s planned further increases, leading to a further 5p reduction in fuel duty. This will be welcomed by people not only in cities, such as those I represent, but in the rural areas around Britain represented by my colleagues.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I also welcome the fact that the rate of fuel duty on the islands will be cut by 5p a litre, starting from April 2012. That will put an extra £5 million into the economy of our islands.
Stephen Williams
My hon. Friend is of course referring to the derogation from the European Commission that has been applied for in order to ensure that the coalition Government’s Budget promise is deliverable under Community law, unlike the undeliverable measure to reduce VAT proposed by Labour.
Fuel duty is, however, a blunt instrument for taxing the motorist. I welcome the measures put forward today to stabilise the prices in between the oil companies and the consumer, but in the medium term, we must look for a much better way of developing a market mechanism for taxing the use of our roads.
A further issue of fairness relates to tax avoidance. Whether practised by large companies or by rich individuals, tax avoidance is an affront to fairness, when ordinary people around the country are going out to work, paying their taxes on time and making their contribution. It is an affront to them that some companies are using the tax system unfairly to avoid tax. Some rich people in society—including sportsmen whom people admire—are also using those schemes. It is therefore right that the Government should take further measures today to close down some of those avoidance schemes and introduce an increased levy on non-domiciled individuals.
Right across the age scale, from pensioners who will benefit from the triple lock, guaranteeing that their pension will go up each year, to children from the poorest families, whose schools will receive the pupil premium, this Government are delivering for all sectors of society. These are fair measures that meet the concerns of ordinary Britons, the people who, according to the term that my party leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, has recently injected into the political debate, wake up to alarm clock Britain. [Laughter.] I knew people would like that, but those are the ordinary families around the country whom all hon. Members represent, and we should not laugh. They are the people who get up and go out to work. They work hard, they want their children to do well and they want their parents to be secure in old age.
Another major element of the Budget, along with fairness, is the plan for growth in the green book that has been launched today. It is important that the plan should be regionally balanced. One of the unfortunate legacies of the last Labour Government was the overheated economy in London and the south-east of England, and the credit bubble which, as we know, eventually burst. We cannot allow that to happen again. This Government are determined that growth should be shared fairly right across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. That is why I particularly welcome the announcement today of 21 enterprise zones and I look forward tomorrow to hearing confirmation from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of where they will be based. I hope that one of them will be in the Greater Bristol local enterprise partnership.
Mr Kevan Jones
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the Red Book. If he looks at the figures for the local enterprise zones, he will see that they add up to about £900,000 for each one. That needs to be compared with the funding for the regional development agencies in the last year of the Labour Government, which was more than £2 billion.
Stephen Williams
We will have to wait and see the detail on the local enterprise zones. What we know from the detail we have had today is that there will be a year’s tax holiday from business rates for people locating in those zones. They will also be equipped with superfast broadband and, I am sure, other measures of support and advice. This issue is bound up with other announcements already made this week about the technology innovation centres and the Manufacturing Advisory Service. There is a whole package of measures that I suggest the hon. Gentleman looks at.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the test of how well a Government policy works is not how much money is spent on it, but the benefits it has? That is why I hope my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the steps taken to help entrepreneurs and scientific research in areas such as Babraham near my constituency.
Stephen Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is, of course, quite right. The question from Labour Members when they were in government was always, “How much money can we possibly spend on this situation?” rather than “What works?” That is the difference between this coalition Government and Labour. I commend my hon. Friend for the measures he has recently published on entrepreneurship.
Another aspect of growth that I want to see in the future that we have not had in the past is green and sustainable growth. I particularly support the confirmation that a green investment bank will be set up with initial capital not of £1 billion, but of £3 billion, to incentivise investment in the low-carbon economy of the future. The Red Book, quoted so much already, suggests that this will leverage into the low-carbon economy a further £18 billion-worth of investment. Before the end of this Parliament, once our finances are stabilised, that bank will be able to borrow in order to make further investments.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the downgrading of the Government’s flagship policy, the green investment bank, from what should have been and would have been a bank able to issue bonds from day one to what amounts to a fund for the next five years effectively reduces the prospects of our country becoming a world leader in green innovation? Does he also agree that by failing properly to back our fledgling green economy, we will find it harder to cut our emissions and harder to achieve or boost energy sovereignty, and we will be missing out on one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time?
Stephen Williams
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been making that case in private to his well-connected friends. I and my colleagues have also been making the case for a green investment bank, not a green investment fund. It has been confirmed as a green investment bank today and it will have £3 billion of seedcorn capital to get it off to a flying start. It is going to start a year earlier than originally suggested. By the end of this Parliament, it will be able to issue bonds so that if we wish, we could all deposit our funds with that bank to invest in our green future.
I also welcome the investment made in innovation and skills, particularly in technology innovation centres. I talked a lot in the last Parliament about the skilling of our young people and how we needed to get more people to take up apprenticeship places, so the confirmation of 50,000 more places today means that there will be 250,000 more in this Parliament than we were left by the last Government.
Speaking as someone who before entering this House spent 17 years in a career in the private sector, advising small businesses on how to set up and take off, I welcome the confirmation or enhancement in the Budget of many reliefs designed to help new and innovative businesses to take off and the fact that by 2014 we will have the lowest rate of corporate tax in the G7. We now look forward to a further period of reform.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) rightly mentioned the integration of the income tax and national insurance schemes, on which there is to be consultation after the Budget. It is, of course, 100 years since Lloyd George, my political hero, introduced the national insurance scheme. During the slump of the 1920s, however—this deals with the point made by the hon. Lady—the actuarial soundness of that scheme was essentially undermined, and ever since then the fiction has been maintained by Governments of all hues that it is a separate fund. In fact, it is a second income tax in all but name, and the time has come to reform it. I am very glad that the Government are going to do that; and because they are going to consult on how it should be done, all the issues raised by the hon. Lady about contributions-based benefits are likely to be dealt with.
The other reform to which I look forward is the move to a system based more on sustainability, involving a tax on carbon. I am delighted that the Chancellor has confirmed the introduction of a new carbon floor price. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I will shortly produce a paper fleshing out how that can work during the rest of the current Parliament.
It is disappointing that we have not been able to agree internationally on further taxes on aviation—both coalition parties wanted an aeroplane tax rather than air passenger duty—and I hope that international agreement will be secured so that that can be achieved. However, I welcome the confirmation that we are to end the absurd anomaly whereby the jets that most of us use when travelling abroad are subject to air passenger duty while private jets are not. Under the existing law, a plane full of football fans going off to watch their heroes must pay tax, while the team itself takes off in a private plane and pays none.
The measures that have already been outlined, and the reforms to which we look forward, reward hard work, incentivise enterprise, and make progress towards a low-carbon economy.
Let me deal finally with the issue of the banks. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced a levy that will be permanent, throughout the life of this Parliament. It has been confirmed today that the banks will not benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, and that the levy will be increased in future. We shall have to wait for the results of the Vickers review to find out whether there are proposals to break up the banks.
Helen Goodman
How can the hon. Gentleman say what he has just said about the banks, given that the bank levy is falling from £600 million to £100 million within three years? That is patently ridiculous.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I understand that the bank levy is about £2.5 billion a year. The Chancellor announced recently that the levy, which was £1.8 billion in its first year, would be increased to £2.5 billion, and today it has been confirmed that the banks will not benefit from the reduction in corporation tax and that the levy will be increased.
Another issue connected with the banks is what we should do with our ownership, as taxpayers, of Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland. That is an issue with which the Government will have to deal at some point in the next few years. A couple of weeks ago I published a pamphlet, with CentreForum, which suggested that the shares should be given to the people so that the state could recover the £67 billion that was invested in the banks bail-out in 2008. The citizen should enjoy the upside: the citizen should enjoy the growth in those shares in the future. I hope that my Treasury colleagues will look favourably on that proposal as they decide what to do with the legacy from the last Government.
The Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition Government have dealt with Labour’s toxic legacy, but Labour Members seem to be still in denial about the problem. They have not acknowledged its existence, let alone shown any sign of contrition for their role in the deficit. The Leader of the Opposition produced some very good jokes today—I will give him that—but he could at least have made an apology. We have started to clear up the mess. Today’s Budget sets in train a plan for a Britain that is fairer, with a stable economy and a low-carbon future. It recognises the need to help households with their budgets now, and to give them confidence that the economy and their country are back on track.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Before we move on, I have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to a stability mechanism for member states whose currency is the euro, the Ayes were 310 and the Noes were 29. Therefore, the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
I shall call Mr Dan Jarvis next, who will be making his maiden speech, and I remind hon. Members of the normal courtesies that should be extended when hearing a maiden speech.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this Budget debate. The first time I remember feeling like this was when I was being summoned by an RAF instructor to make my first parachute jump—a leap of faith into the unknown. Today, however, as I rise to make my maiden speech in this Chamber, I am reassured by knowing that the hon. Members who have gone before me—most of them—have landed without incurring permanent injury.
The people of Barnsley Central have a long history of electing good people to serve as their Member of Parliament. Only time will tell whether I extend that record, but it is a great privilege to pay tribute to my predecessors. It is truly humbling to think that I follow in the footsteps of the former Barnsley MP, Roy Mason, a coal miner at the age of 14. Lord Mason went on to serve the town as its MP for 34 years. During that time, he served in a number of Governments and held a number of high offices.
I also have the great privilege of representing wards that were previously in the Barnsley, West and Penistone constituency. Before being abolished, the constituency was represented by the formidable Michael Clapham. As an MP, Mick did tremendous work to support other former miners, securing compensation for those who had been injured through their work and for the families of those miners who had been killed.
As it was for Roy and Mick, so it was for Barnsley: coal mining was at the heart of the community. Barnsley is a town with a proud history of linen, wire and glass making, but coal mining once accounted for more than 30,000 jobs. It was a community built on coal. In good times and bad, in war and in peace, places such as Barnsley kept this economy and this country going. As is said in Barnsley: “We dug the coal.”
I would also like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Eric Illsley. It is acknowledged that Eric made mistakes—mistakes that cast a shadow across his good work for the people of Barnsley—but we should not forget that Eric chose to dedicate his life to the betterment of the lives of working people. Like Mick and Roy, Eric served the community and spent 10 years as a National Union of Mineworkers official, including during the miners’ strike. Many people have told me that Eric was a very hard-working and conscientious constituency MP with a strong record of supporting and representing working men and women in Barnsley.
Having served two tours in Afghanistan, I was relieved to fight a—relatively, at least—peaceful by-election campaign in Barnsley, but I was ably supported by some brilliant local campaigners: people such as Anita Cherryhome and Tracey Cheetham, to name just two among the many to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. My transition from the Army to civilian life has been made a pleasure because of the people of Barnsley and their support. I remember the warmth of the welcome I received at the New Lodge working men’s club while having a pint with Roy Butterwood, and from the fantastic people working in Barnsley hospital. Both institutions are, in different ways, at the heart of the community.
I met hundreds of amazing people during the by-election, including teachers, NHS workers, police officers, business owners and volunteers: remarkable people working hard and achieving remarkable things in Barnsley, in Yorkshire and beyond.
My constituents are proud people. People such as Len Picken and Jenny Platts are proud of their industrial heritage, proud of who they are today and proud of what Barnsley can continue to be in the future. There is no question but that the people of my constituency have the energy, skill and dedication to make our community a better place. The question today is whether Barnsley’s future is safe under this Government or whether it will be savaged by spending cuts and by a failure to protect jobs and opportunities for the young, as it was in the 1980s.
The people of Barnsley were looking for today’s Budget to pass two clear tests. Did it deliver for families who are finding times hard as pay freezes hit, world prices rise and the VAT increase takes up to £450 a year out of a family’s household spending; and did it demonstrate that the Government have a plan to generate jobs and the growth that would create jobs? The Barnsley of today, after more than a decade of investment and reform to our public services and our infrastructure, is not the Barnsley of the 1980s. Barnsley and our country can and should thrive. Indeed, a year ago, growth in this country was rising, and unemployment and inflation were falling. We had hoped that the mistakes of the past were forgotten and that communities such as Barnsley would not be abandoned as they were then, leaving a generation scarred.
The 1980s and 1990s were a dark chapter for the town, as the then Government closed down the mines which were the heart and soul of our community and stood back and let unemployment and misery linger for a generation. In recent years, Councillor Steve Houghton, the outstanding leader of Barnsley council, was instrumental in working with the Department for Work and Pensions in devising the future jobs fund, which helped more than 600 people find jobs in Barnsley. But the future jobs fund ends this month and Barnsley is facing some of the deepest cuts in the country. The council has to find £26 million this year and £46 million in total, and jobs will inevitably be lost. The truth is that today South Yorkshire police are losing 400 police officers and facing deeper cuts than many other forces. The increase in VAT on fuel is costing people in Yorkshire £53 million in extra fuel tax this year. The education maintenance allowance was helping more than 3,500 of Barnsley’s young people to afford to stay in education. This September, some of the poorest young people going into education will be £30 a week worse off and, even on the Government’s own figures, one in 10 of them will drop out of education as a result.
The Government told us that we were out of the danger zone, that their plan was working and that they should be judged on the figures. Today, inflation is rising, partly as a result of the VAT rise, unemployment is rising and growth has stalled. Barnsley urgently needs an alternative: a plan to get jobs and to help families feeling the squeeze. The Government could have chosen to repeat the bank bonus tax—a tax on those on whose shoulders much of the responsibility for our predicament should fall. That money could have funded a plan—a plan to build houses, to invest in infrastructure and to get young people in work—but they chose not take that approach. The real test of this Budget was whether the voice of the country had been heard, whether the evidence had been heeded and whether the Government had listened on jobs and on the cost of living. They have failed this test.
The previous Labour Government, whatever their faults, did their bit to invest in the future, and their investment in education and training was particularly important. In Barnsley, the Building Schools for the Future project has successfully provided new schools such as Darton college, the Dearne advanced learning centre and the Carlton community college, with six more in the pipeline, to sit alongside the inspirational Barnsley college, rated as “outstanding” in Ofsted’s last inspection.
My service in the Parachute Regiment has taught me that so much can be achieved when people are given the right tools, the right skills and the right training—when they are given the support and funding to be the best. I know from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that the men and women of our armed forces are the best. I have had the privilege of serving with some amazing people, but, above all, it has been a pleasure to serve with the soldiers and NCOs—the backbone of our armed forces. Today, I particularly remember Corporal Bryan Budd VC and Corporal Mark Wright GC, both of the Parachute Regiment, who lost their lives while serving our country with the most outstanding valour. I pay the highest tribute to them and to all those men and women who have fallen in the pursuit of maintaining the security of our country. We must never forget their families who are left behind to grieve, but it is not enough just to praise the armed forces. They must be supported with the best training and equipment, and the military covenant is not an optional extra but an essential piece of kit.
The strategic defence and security review may come to be remembered as the Fox review, but only in the future will we know whether it is as cunning as its name might suggest or if it is, as Professor Paul Cornish states in his recent Chatham House report, merely an attempt to “muddle through”. This is no time to muddle through. Clear policy and decisive action are a must, and we must move the debate on to determining the desired strategic outputs rather than merely considering defence inputs.
Although there is rightly much focus on Libya and events in the middle east, in Afghanistan the efforts of our armed forces are nothing short of heroic, and they are buying space and time for the Afghan Government, but the question remains of how we should use that time. In the end, the true measure of progress is how far Afghanistan has advanced towards a political settlement capable of providing enduring stability, because that is the safest way of securing both our interests and those of the Afghans. We and our American allies should not wait to push forward a serious dialogue for reconciliation. Ultimately, politics is always the solution. Whatever the progress with that effort, it is critical to address not only the external and regional elements of the conflict, but its internal cause: the issues of legitimacy, the rule of law and grievance that push people to support the Taliban and to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy)referred in his recent speech to the Royal United Services Institute.
I must thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who, through their advice and kindness, have ensured my safe landing in this place. It is with my deepest thanks to them that I now feel a little more able to live up to my old regimental motto, “Utrinque paratus”, or “Ready for anything”.
Finally, if I have learnt nothing else during the by-election campaign, I have learnt this: the spirit and aspiration of the people of Barnsley cannot be trodden down and I, as their Member of Parliament, will do all I can to stand up for them. It is their hard work, their pride in themselves and their compassion for others that makes me so very proud to represent them here today.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
It is an honour and privilege to follow any maiden speech, but it is particularly so in this case. I know I speak for the whole House when I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on a magnificent performance. He spoke with command, it was a measured speech and in every sense—whether it was the humorous side or the remarks he made about his predecessors—it was an absolute example of how an hon. Member should make a maiden speech. When I made my maiden speech at the end of 1983, it was an ordeal not only for me but for the House that had to listen to me.
The hon. Gentleman performed splendidly. I also held his predecessor in high regard as a parliamentarian and I much regret the way he left this House. Colleagues listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech will have come to the conclusion that he brings unique experience to this place that will greatly enrich our deliberations in the future. I certainly would not willingly jump out of an aeroplane, you would have to push me and that would be the end of it. I speak for the whole House—I do not think we get much Conservative support in Barnsley Central—when I wish him a long and successful career.
Turning to the Budget, there is no doubt that this has been the most difficult and gloomy time I have known for people in business—until today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his well-crafted and clever Budget, which will cheer up the country. It has already cheered up Government Members and, as colleagues will have observed from the general atmosphere among Opposition Members three or four hours ago, it has absolutely cheesed off the Opposition. I am getting sick to death with Members on the Conservative and, dare I say, Liberal Benches being castigated for the absolute mess that the country is in. One party alone is responsible for that—Labour. It is because of the Labour party that we are facing debt interest of £120 million a day and because of the Labour party that we have the biggest structural debt in the G7.
I want to share with colleagues who were elected last year what the past 13 years have been like. As hon. Members will know, the last Prime Minister was previously the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had the experience of listening to 10 of his Budgets, which he greatly enjoyed delivering. He used to come to the Dispatch Box and two thirds of the way through his speech he would wind Conservative Members up. Then he would make what he thought would be the headline-grabbing news item that would cheer everyone up. But then we would all go away and people would read the Red Book and within a few weeks we would find out that what he had told us was not in any sense accurate. So I congratulate the Chancellor on the new Red Book, because unlike the previous one it is not big enough to use as a doorstop, which is all that one was fit for.
Labour Members seem to think that Government Members relish making cuts.
Mr Amess
We do not, and I find it hypocritical that although Labour Members used to speak about cuts before the general election—I can only talk about those who were here before the election—we no longer hear about the cuts they were going to make. It is as though the Conservatives and Liberals rejoice in making cuts. If anyone wants to know why the country is in a mess, I can tell them it is because the Labour party took away regulation from the Bank of England and gave it to an organisation that was not fit for purpose. Also, as one of my colleagues said during Prime Minister’s questions, Labour stupidly sold off our gold reserves.
I will go further: in all his Budgets the then Chancellor of the Exchequer would make announcements about spending in terms not of millions but billions, and we in opposition used to wonder how it could be funded. We now know that it could not be funded and that we were spending money we never had. I will never forgive Tony Blair—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might huff and puff, but I am entitled to say this because it was Tony Blair who got me to vote for the war in Iraq and I will never forgive him for having told us a pack of lies at the Dispatch Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very passionately about the subject, but perhaps he would like to temper his language and, in particular, withdraw the accusation of lying.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman can make remarks about people who are not Members of Parliament. I am touching on his language, and the convention in this House on the moderate use of language and on allegations against people who are unable to correct what has been said.
Mr Amess
I hope that Tony Blair will correct what I have said when he again gives evidence, but I blame him for the way he completely misled the country on any number of issues. Not the least part of his lasting legacy is the fact that he destroyed the House of Commons, because this is certainly not the place that I entered in 1983. I further blame the last Prime Minister, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer. New Labour Members come into the Chamber and castigate Government Members for what is going on; what on earth were they standing for in the general election campaign in May?
Mr Kevan Jones
Having listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I wish he was in an aeroplane so that we could push him out. He feels that he has been duped on Iraq and on spending, but why, then, did he and the leader of his party say right up to 2008, including in a speech by the leader of his party in July 2008 to the CBI conference, that the Conservatives would match the Labour Government’s spending?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I wanted to check whether the hon. Gentleman’s position of not relishing cuts—I am sure that he does not relish them—reflects the position of his party generally, given that the Chair of the Treasury Committee said this morning that he believed that public spending should be reduced, even if we were not in deficit.
Mr Stewart Jackson
Does my hon. Friend not agree that it takes an enormous degree of mismanagement and incompetence, after 12 years of economic growth, to leave 5 million people on out-of-work benefits, languishing in a half-life on the edge of society? That is the legacy of the Labour Government.
Mr Amess
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would just say that if Labour Members feel that they were absolutely spot on in their judgment on the economy, why was Labour not re-elected last year? We had a general election last year, and the Conservative party was overwhelmingly the largest party returned; in any case, the Labour party was defeated. I am afraid that the Labour party’s reaction to the Budget today—they were absolutely cheesed off—says it all.
Before the Budget, I had representations from all manner of organisations, including the Association for Consultancy and Engineering and others in a conglomeration of engineering companies, and Essex chambers of commerce. I have to say that the Budget was much brighter and more positive than I expected, so whatever demands have been made, I think that the Chancellor has met them completely. I am delighted that at long last something is being done about regulation. I am absolutely delighted that we are looking at how we deal with income tax and national insurance. I am delighted about the cut in corporation tax. I am absolutely delighted with what we are doing about fuel duty; one could see from Labour Members’ glum faces that they were very disappointed with that. I am glad that in the east of England, 106,000 people are being taken out of a tax band, and I am very pleased with what has happened about gift aid.
I hope that Conservative Members will become a little more robust when Opposition Members have the temerity to castigate them after nine months for the mess that the country is in. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members are looking at the party that is entirely responsible for meltdown Britain. I congratulate the Chancellor on his Budget today and on cheering up the country.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I would love to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), but instead I will restrict myself to saying that I agree with him entirely that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made a very good maiden speech indeed. It is certainly a pleasure to follow him, if not the hon. Member for Southend West. [Interruption.] The Economic Secretary to the Treasury says from a sedentary position that that is harsh. It is only a little harsh.
The Budget was billed as a Budget for growth, and by goodness, we need it, so let us test that. In his statement and in the Red Book the Chancellor gave us a great deal of information. Our national debt for 2010-11 was expected last year to be £932 billion. It is now forecast to be £909 billion for that year. It was expected to be £1.6 trillion next year, but it is coming in at £1.46 trillion. The deficit was expected to be £149 billion for last year. That seems to be coming in at £146 billion. But the figure for 2011-12 was forecast to be £116 billion and that is now up to £122 billion, if the numbers are to be believed. That tells us that the Chancellor may have had a little room for manoeuvre, but growth is essential if the figures are to remain on target and if we are to have any chance at all of protecting jobs and services.
I welcome the direction of travel on corporation tax but, because the Budget was so thin and fiscally neutral—the entire Budget barely shifted £10 million in total—it effectively confirms that the cuts, which were forecast last year at £99 billion and revised down to £81 billion in the comprehensive spending review, are still there. It confirms that £29 billion of tax rises announced last year are effectively still there. It confirms the swingeing benefit cuts of £11 billion announced last year and confirmed in the CSR. It also confirms the changes in some of the pension component, particularly the RPI-CPI switch, which will yield the Exchequer £1.2 billion this year, rising to nearly £6 billion in 2014-15.
On pensions, the Chancellor spoke about a single-tier pension. That is similar to the citizens pension concept that many of us support, but to deliver that with savings predicated on changing not just the state pension, but all public sector pensions, which are contracted and paid into, in some cases, for many, many years, cannot be right. He also said in relation to pensions that he would accept all the Hutton recommendations. It may well be that all of us have to save a little more a little longer for the pension that we expect at the end, but let the Government be in no doubt that a 3% hike in pension contributions now will put some of our constituents—indeed, many of our constituents—in serious financial difficulties in the short term. I hope that the implementation of that is carefully considered.
On PFI—the Labour party’s worst legacy—the figures are truly frightening. The value of the capital projects is some £56 billion. The cost of the outstanding repayment liability is £214 billion. The average repayment each year until 2047-48 will be £6 billion, and that will peak at more than £9 billion in 2017-18. The Chancellor said nothing about that, or about how we would replace the PFI system. Throughout his speech he spoke of encouraging private investment, and some of that is to be welcomed, but he said nothing about how we would replace PFI by means of public capital investment. We know how vital that is, given that the economic impact multiplier for capital expenditure is 1:1. It is the most significant thing we can invest in and, more dangerously, the worse possible thing we can cut.
The Chancellor had a great deal to say about oil, which is not surprising given that the forecast for 2011-12 shows that the North sea will generate an additional £4 billion. He is right to take immediate action because households and businesses are struggling. The price of a gallon of petrol in rural Scotland is routinely £6.50, and we know that in the past four or five weeks the price increase in diesel has added £1,000 to the annual cost of running a truck. That is unsustainable and inflationary. I welcome the 1p cut and the fact that the proposed increase has been stopped, but the Government said that they had introduced a stabiliser, and I have re-read his speech any number of times. The stabiliser seems to me to suggest that when the barrel price increases it is merely the escalator that is cancelled, leaving the indexed rise in place. I always understood that the stabiliser would reduce the duty level when the price rose so that we could temper out some of spikes in rising prices. By only including the escalator, we do not have a stabiliser at all and will still see many of the spikes that we have been trying to smooth out to bring some stability back into the economy, particularly in the haulage sector.
The Chancellor said surprisingly little about the banks, so I will go back to what he said in February. He announced that the banks would lend more, especially to small businesses, pay more taxes, bring responsibility and restraint to the sector, pay less in bonuses, be more transparent and make a greater contribution to the regional economy. That is all fine, but in order to thrive and grow companies need access to affordable and flexible funding, and they need it now. That remains a huge hurdle for many of our businesses.
The lack of new lending in particular is continuing to have an adverse impact on individual companies as well as on the economy as a whole. Business investment, as the Minister knows, will remain some 20% below pre-recession levels. Indeed, there was a 0.5% fall in gross fixed capital formation in the last quarter of 2010, which is extremely worrying, given that this is supposed to be a business growth and export-driven recovery.
All the evidence I have seen highlights the importance of expanding sustainable lending. Although we welcome the lending commitments agreed between the Government and the banks, it is important to ensure that they move quickly on the issue. I would have thought that the Chancellor had much more to say today about how the banking community would increase even gross lending to businesses across the country. Instead, although he did increase enterprise investment scheme limits to encourage private investment, which I welcome, he said nothing about bank lending. It is the retail banks on the high street that most of our small businesses depend upon for both capital and cash flow.
The two key issues of oil and access to finance are not just about economic recovery, but about fairness, as is alcohol duty, and there were a few changes on that today. However, the Government brought forward no measure whatsoever to tax alcoholic drinks by alcohol content. Whisky is still penalised and we still have the ludicrous situation where 4% beer is taxed more heavily than 7.5% cider, which does nothing to promote public health or address the wider social and economic consequences of excessive drinking. Picking up the tab for those costs is estimated to equate to a tax of some £3.5 billion in Scotland alone. I am surprised that the Chancellor did not use the Budget to take measures to deal with that problem.
There are also huge dangers in the Budget, as it confirms the cut to the Scottish budget and threatens recovery there. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the recent reduction in unemployment. The figures for March show that unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 16,000 and employment has risen by 8,000, the eighth consecutive reported rise in employment. That is all good news, and we have to drive it forward, but cutting the Scottish budget, particularly £800 million from the capital budget, will have a huge impact on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to drive forward many of the initiatives that were making a difference as we came out of the recession.
Given the economic backdrop, particularly the fourth quarter figures for the whole UK and the need to continue to support growth, the Scottish Government and, indeed, the UK Government need a Budget that supports clear, targeted resources. Given also that the Chancellor had some flexibility, I am surprised that he did not offer up a targeted measure to increase capital expenditure, because it has the most significant impact of any public spending.
What the Chancellor did talk about was enterprise zones, of course, and we certainly welcome those as a concept. They could be used in Moray, for example, given the closure of RAF Kinloss, but the Budget offered little detail beyond suggesting some business rate reductions and streamlined planning measures, both of which the Chancellor rightly said are devolved. For enterprise zones to work properly, they should revert to the old form, which included the significant use of capital resources, but, given that there is only £80 million in four years’ time, or £4 million per site, much of which I suspect will be used to offset business rates for local authorities, it strikes me as inconceivable that the Government have planned and prepared for the significant use of capital allowances to deliver their potential.
Mr Kevan Jones
The amount is actually less than that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because, although page 42 of the Red Book cites £80 million in year four, over the period, if we spread the amount across the 21 proposed enterprise zones, we find that it works out at less than £1 million per zone.
Stewart Hosie
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done the four-year forecast and the average for me, but the point is the same: there is very little money in what ought to be an initiative with the potential, at least, to deliver some significant economic investment.
We need targeted measures, and one measure that the Chancellor could have introduced today was targeted help for the computer games industry. A targeted tax break was suggested previously but pulled from the previous Budget. Debates in the Scottish Parliament have backed it, and debates in Westminster have had all-party support, but he rejected the idea in 2010 and rejected it today. He did say, however, that he would improve the intellectual property regime and increase the small companies R and D tax credit, and I look to understand from the Government at some point whether there is a specific way in which the video games industry and other growing high-tech industries might access it, and access it in an appropriate way that protects them and grows them in future.
In terms of targeted measures, we also believe that there was a compelling case for the Scottish Government to be given responsibility for the administration and revenues of the Crown Estate in Scotland, given the focus in Scotland and the UK on driving a low-carbon economy and the existing responsibilities for marine planning and economic development. This Budget provided the Chancellor with the opportunity to indicate that he was prepared to do that through Government amendments to the Scotland Bill, but no commitment was made.
The Chancellor could also have demonstrated—another small targeted measure—that he was prepared to adjust the tax treatment of participants and sponsors at the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in 2014 so that there was equality of treatment with participants and sponsors at the Olympic games in 2012. I know that the Scottish Government and others have contacted him on the matter, because it is important to the overall success of the 2014 games and to the economic regeneration of the east end of Glasgow, so I am deeply disappointed that, in a Budget when he had the opportunity to talk about parity of tax treatment, he did not take it.
I know also that, following the abolition of the end-year flexibility agreements with the devolved Administrations, a new system was to be introduced and the Chancellor intended to set out details in this Budget. They might be tucked away in a document I have not read, but there was no mention made of that at all, or of whether a new end-year cash reserve could be established so that end-year flexibility was maintained in a way that was beneficial not just to the Scottish Administration, but to Wales and to Northern Ireland.
The Chancellor spoke a lot about the green economy and about several measures that he intends to take, and, as the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor know, there is still accrued £195 million of fossil fuel levy that only the Scottish Government can use. It ought to be released, but under the current rules it cannot without a comparable claw-back from the block grant. This was the opportunity for the Chancellor to release those funds, but he missed it.
That is particularly disappointing in relation to the announcement about the green investment bank, which was supposed to be the alternative. In November 2010, in the Treasury Committee, I asked the Chancellor what the timing was for its establishment, and he said that he wanted to get it up and running as soon as possible. He said that he hoped to come forward with proposals on how it was going to be structured between now and Christmas and that he would have set aside money to go into the bank in the comprehensive spending review. It is therefore hugely depressing that we have to wait another year, until 2012, before it can start to function. Given the press coverage that I am sure we have all seen, it looks as though it will be 2015 before it is fully operational.
A further green disappointment is that there was no mention whatsoever of green individual savings accounts—a key Tory policy to be introduced within two years as a way of helping savers to benefit from the growth of the green economy, because the billions raised from their sale would fund the state-backed green investment bank. Yet it seems that because of objections they are to be dropped, choking off a funding stream that would have channelled an estimated £2 billion a year into green technologies. I do not know if the shutdown of green ISAs is part of a wider move to curtail the potential operations of the green bank before it is even set up, but it is extremely worrying. Finally on green issues, the carbon floor price was mentioned. I understand from those who know more about that than I do that it is, in effect, a secret subsidy to the nuclear industry, which is anything but green.
The Chancellor said that this was a Budget for growth, but growth will be stifled if the banks do not lend, and if he takes no action on alcohol duty. Growth will be restricted by his failure to reassess the cuts in capital expenditure, and the opportunity of enterprise zones will be squandered without the proper application of capital allowances. Growth sectors such as the games industry will be damaged by the refusal to introduce tax breaks. Growth in the green economy will be slowed because of the refusal to release funds from the fossil fuel levy, and investment in our green future will be reduced because of delays in setting up the green bank. The Chancellor took an hour to shuffle £10 million. It was a profoundly wasted opportunity when he could have done so much more.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
It is an honour to follow in the slipstream of the new Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has executed an elegant parachute jump into the Chamber. His forceful and powerful speech was a reminder of how important it is, at a time when the country is making ever greater demands on its armed forces, that we hear the voices of our servicemen and women from all parts of the Chamber.
Thus far we have touched several times on the critical role that the bond markets are playing in framing the budgetary policy of this coalition Government. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked when it was that bond markets acquired this pivotal role in our national economic policy making. If I may venture an answer, I think that the views of rating agencies became impossible to ignore when towards the middle of the previous decade—before the onset of the financial crisis—the British Government
“lost control of public spending”
in three key Government Departments: Health, Education and Defence. Those are not my words or views but those of Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the permanent secretary of Her Majesty’s Treasury, as expressed in a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee not so long ago; they are available in the Committee report if people wish to have a look.
It is also important for the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to realise that we live in a globalised financial market, and if one cannot fund one’s borrowing requirements from captive domestic sources, inevitably one is forced upon the mercies of the international capital markets, and that is exactly where we find ourselves today.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the Conservatives are peddling the line that we are in hock to foreign banks, but does the hon. Gentleman not realise that only about 35% of our gilts and debts are held abroad? Greece is always held up as the big pariah, and its figure is nearly 70%. The hon. Gentleman’s argument is frankly complete nonsense.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that elegantly expressed critique. It is a significant proportion of our borrowing. It is not the totality, and I never said that it was. However, if our marginal investor, whom we need to supply that additional pound of borrowing, is setting the price for our borrowing, that determines the rate at which we finance ourselves. It is as simple as that. That is straightforward marginal pricing through supply and demand.
Joseph Johnson
No, I will carry on for a little.
In my view, it is only thanks to the resolve and determination of this Government that we have sufficient credibility with the bond markets to have delivered a Budget for growth. The Budget includes an acceleration of the plans to cut corporation tax, which will give a much-needed boost to Britain’s international competitiveness. I am particularly pleased by that because at a time when countries need to compete ever more aggressively to attract highly skilled labour, the UK is increasingly being seen not just as a high-tax economy, but as one with a highly complex and unwieldy tax system. The World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness report for 2011 ranked the UK tax regime the 95th most competitive out of 135 countries—almost at the bottom of the world rankings. That sends out a terrible signal to global business.
The UK tax regime was once viewed as an asset and I am glad that the Government are proceeding with plans to make it an asset once again. I fully support the Chancellor’s plans to give Britain the most competitive business tax regime of any major western economy, and to reverse our slide down the global competitiveness rankings. Already, the coalition Government have reversed planned increases in payroll taxes and lowered small business rates. As we heard from the Chancellor this afternoon, they will accelerate reductions in corporation tax so that by 2014, the rate falls to 23%—the lowest ever rate in this country and the lowest in the G7. That is something that we should celebrate if we are serious about enterprise and entrepreneurialism in this country.
I also welcome the Chancellor’s decision to analyse closely whether the top rate of tax is yield positive or negative for the British economy. It is worth considering whether it is deterring investment, thereby losing us more revenue than it is bringing in. A more competitive, simpler and more stable tax regime is an essential precondition for growth and will ultimately be better for everybody in this country, rich and poor alike.
When countries that had public finances in a comparable state to ours last May are still fighting off the terrible spectre of sovereign debt default, it would be terrible folly to slow the pace of what is widely regarded as a necessary fiscal consolidation. Our policies are under intense scrutiny by the international bond markets, to which we are paying £120 million in interest daily. We cannot afford for our borrowing costs to rise, as they have elsewhere. We are paying 3.6% in the gilt markets on our staggering public debt. Other countries are paying rates closer to 8% or 9%, and Greece is paying a staggering 12.6%. We simply cannot afford to be complacent, as the Governor of the Bank of England made clear in a recent hearing of the Treasury Committee, at which he stated firmly that UK gilt rates would rise by three percentage points if we backtracked from the course of fiscal consolidation that we have outlined.
Mr Jones
I wish the hon. Gentleman would do some homework before he makes accusations, and not just swallow the central office lines on such things. He does not tell the House that less than 20% of our debt needs to be repaid in the next three years, whereas Greece and other countries need to repay 36% or 37% of their debt in the next three years. The idea that we have an instant crisis is wrong. Can he tell me when a UK Government have ever defaulted on a gilt payment?
Joseph Johnson
There are problems when a country has a stock of debt as massive as ours. Even with the Government’s plans for fiscal consolidation, it will not start declining for some years to come. Under the Labour Government our stock of debt would have peaked at about 80% of gross domestic product, but under the current Government’s plans it will peak somewhere below 70%—69%, I think I recall. [Hon. Members: “71%.”] Either 69% or 71%. Such a massive stock of debt means that every year, we have to refinance several hundred billion pounds of Government debt. Even if it is not all the debt, that is still a very substantial amount of money.
Richard Fuller
Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to read on page 25 of the debt and reserves management report issued today that the gap in the five-year forward rate on debt borrowing is at its highest point for 10 years. That reflects the fact that the market is buying only short-term debt. One of the few assets of this country that the last Government did not sell down the river was the long-dated debt that we have compared with other countries. If we had carried on with their policies, even that would have been lost as a result of their profligacy and waste.
Joseph Johnson
That is a very good point. Markets can turn on a dime if they detect backsliding, and that is not what they are getting from this Government.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Conservatives spend all their time suggesting that this is just a national problem. The hon. Gentleman cited the possibility of our debt being 71% of GDP, but in Germany the figure is 79%, in France it is 75%, in Italy it is 116% and in Japan it is 194%. These problems came to every country in the world, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was not responsible for all of them.
Joseph Johnson
Markets can turn on a dime if they detect backsliding. Recovering lost confidence would require much bigger cuts to public spending than the credible ones that the Government have outlined. Evidence for that is in abundant supply in countries on the periphery of the eurozone. Despite the agreement on the post-2013 European stability mechanism, concerns about the underlying solvency of the most vulnerable countries—Portugal, Ireland and Greece—are growing.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am terribly sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will he respond later in his speech to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked him?
Joseph Johnson
I did not touch on it directly because the reply is obvious. Yes, other countries have large debts, but that does not mean that we do not have an urgent need to reduce the scope of our borrowing and our national interest payments.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should recognise that every country’s situation is different. He mentions Japan, whose debt might be about 190% of GDP, but it is also the largest creditor nation in the world. Only about 5% of its total debt stock is held by foreign investors. The situation is quite different in our case.
Joseph Johnson
That is an excellent point.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said earlier, Portugal’s position is particularly precarious at the moment because opposition parties there, much like here, have refused to back the austerity measures needed to help the country avoid a bail-out. That could force Portugal further down the international bail-out route that was first trodden by Greece last spring and then by Ireland at the end of last year. Portugal’s 10-year Government bond yields rose comfortably above 8% yesterday, for the first time since the start of the crisis, reflecting plunging market confidence in the resolve of that country’s political class. That cannot be said of the occupants of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman uses Greece, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes a very good point: we must look at countries individually. Our economy is larger than Portugal’s or Greece’s and completely different in other ways. In addition, countries such as those have a tradition of being unable to implement fiscal reductions, unlike ours. The basic, simple point is this: £5,000 is a lot to owe for someone earning £10,000, but it is a completely different thing for the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) or other such people to owe that much.
Joseph Johnson
I am not sure which of those many points to focus on. Greece’s economy is of course very different from ours, and we have a history of repaying our creditors in full, on time and when we say we will. We do not want to lose that reputation, which is why it is so important that the Government stick to their plans to bring our public finances back on to a sustainable path. We cannot compromise or jeopardise our standing in the international financial markets.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does not the fact that £332 billion needs to be raised on the gilt market over the next two years, which at an extra 3% would be £9 billion a year of extra interest, show the utterly cavalier approach of Opposition Members in their recent interventions?
Joseph Johnson
Absolutely—their way of looking at our borrowing requirements is completely irresponsible. To think that we should pay more than £120 million a day in interest, which we are currently paying, is utterly absurd.
Chris Bryant
Incidentally, it is interesting to hear the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) condemn cavaliers. I thought he was one in the 17th century.
Many countries whose debt is a higher share of gross domestic product than the UK’s are not cutting anywhere near as fast as we are. Of all 29 major industrialised countries, only one is cutting faster than us: Greece.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman may be a great economic expert, but he might find that the world’s foremost economists and international financial organisations, from the International Monetary Fund to the OECD—the entire gamut of respected economic thought—see this fiscal consolidation as necessary. There is no backsliding, which I applaud.
Before those interventions, I was saying that Portugal is moving ever closer to becoming the third eurozone periphery country to need a bail-out. Borrowing costs are again rising to a new euro-era high in Ireland, which desperately needs eurozone members at tomorrow’s summit to reach a political compromise on revised lending terms.
By contrast, Britain is a different story, thanks to the credible policies in the emergency Budget last June and the policies announced in October’s spending review. There is no sign whatever of any funding problems in the gilts market—quite the opposite—and we must prize that achievement. We have saved our triple A credit rating, which was under threat of downgrade in the last months of the previous Government, and kept our borrowing costs close to historic lows.
The coalition Government have earned the respect of the international capital markets and have their confidence, because the combination of a tight fiscal and a loose monetary policy remains the best chance of avoiding a sovereign debt crisis while ensuring acceptable increases in GDP. Britain simply could not for long run a budget deficit of 11% of GDP—the second highest in the OECD—without taking the unacceptable risk of losing the confidence of the bond markets. Almost a year on, the wisdom of taking decisive action to reduce the risk of sovereign debt crisis is obvious to all except perhaps Labour Members. Even Gavyn Davies, the Labour-supporting economist, conceded in yesterday’s Financial Times that getting the deficit down was a “defensible decision”.
A debt crisis would have been disastrous for growth and unemployment, as many European nations are now discovering. Furthermore, unlike those countries, Britain can, and is, using monetary and exchange rate policy to offset the fiscal tightening, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said. I hope that that will keep the economy recovering.
As I have said, all manner of international bodies, from the IMF to the OECD, are unanimous in urging the Chancellor to stay the fiscal course that he has so consistently outlined for this country. Yes, real GDP growth may have dipped temporarily as consumers’ expenditure has been weakened, and today’s growth forecasts for 2011 from the Office for Budget Responsibility may be a little lower than we would have liked. However—
Joseph Johnson
I will continue, if I may.
However, business surveys have been much stronger than the official data, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the chances of a double-dip recession are no more than 20%. Even Gavyn Davies, the great Labour-supporting economist, admits that this figure is
“not high enough to jettison the government’s main strategy, with the loss of credibility which that would imply.”
Mr Davies is, of course, completely right. Maintaining the current policy remains the best bet for Britain in the medium to long term, and that is what matters most.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on making an excellent maiden speech. He talked about the spirit and aspiration of the people of Barnsley. I know that he will make a very good Member of Parliament and will certainly bring that spirit and aspiration to the House of Commons. Let me also say what pleasure I took in the election result in Barnsley. Seeing the good people of Yorkshire give the Liberal Democrats a real pasting—they put them in sixth place and made them lose their deposit—was enormously pleasurable.
The Chancellor talked about the necessity for growth across sectors and across the country. He also said that growth should be properly shared across all parts of the country. I want to talk about growth and the impact on the regions, and particularly the Yorkshire region and the sub-region in the Humber. We recently had some good news in Hull, which is that Siemens will hopefully set up a manufacturing site in east Hull to build wind turbines. That will result in about 10,000 jobs, which is excellent news for Hull and the Humber region. Like all Members across the House, I want a growing economy, high-skilled jobs for all the people in this country, and a well-educated and well-skilled work force. We have a history in Hull, having lost the fishing industry in years gone by, and other historic employment issues that we still need to address, so growth is important for my constituents and my city.
However, it is important that we take an economic reality check and ask what the Budget will actually deliver. The key thing—this has been mentioned by many hon. Members across the Chamber—is that the growth forecast was down last year, it was down this year and it is down the year after. The hopes and aspirations of all my constituents have been dashed by what has happened since this coalition Government came into power.
I want to set this debate in the context of what it means for my city of Hull. Since last May, £20 million has disappeared from Hull’s local economy because of the coalition’s council cuts. We will see £25 million leaving the NHS in Hull, while £160 million has already gone because plans for the regeneration project in Orchard Park have been axed. Hull’s housing pathfinder funding has gone. There is zero decent homes funding for the next three years. Some £21 million has been cut from Hull’s Building Schools for the Future programme, and the university of Hull is getting a 5% funding cut.
There are major cuts to services across the piece in the public sector in Hull, which has a direct impact on the private sector. I fail to understand why the coalition does not see that cutting the public sector to the extent that it is will not help growth, but produce even more problems.
Richard Fuller
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the country has record debts, and if so, which public expenditure cuts would she make?
Diana Johnson
I am concerned that our economy should grow, and I am trying to set into context—
Diana Johnson
Will the hon. Gentleman just let me finish? I paid him the respect of listening to his question; I would appreciate it if he would listen to what I have to say.
One way of getting out of the problems that we have experienced as a result of the bankers’ problems—not the Labour Government’s problems, as the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) tried to suggest—is to grow the economy. I am with the coalition Government on the need for a growth strategy for the economy, but the measures that have been taken so far will not help to grow the economy in Hull and the Humber.
Diana Johnson
No, I want to carry on making the point about why there is a real need in Yorkshire and, in particular, the Humber to grow the economy. The measures that have been taken are not helping. The result of all that money being taken out of my city is that construction jobs are going and we shall not have the training or the apprenticeships that the Chancellor has talked about. For the first time, we have seen compulsory redundancies at BAE Systems, a major private sector employer just outside Hull on which many of my constituents rely for skilled jobs. It is a place where people want to work, but private sector jobs are being lost there.
The abolition of the regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, is a huge loss to the region and to the building up of the regional economy. The coalition has introduced local enterprise partnerships to assist regeneration. We all agree that we need to regenerate areas such as East Yorkshire and the Humber, and Yorkshire Forward was doing a very good job of building up the economy. The Government’s answer was to remove the RDA and create a regional growth fund. Now, whenever a question is raised about where funding can be accessed, we are told to go to the regional growth fund. The housing pathfinder has been scrapped, and the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) to go to the regional growth fund for money. It seems to me that the fund must already have been spent about 100 times over. It is just ridiculous.
Alison McGovern
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge, as I do, that the impact of these policies is borne out by the numbers, as the growth forecasts are downgraded?
Diana Johnson
That is absolutely clear.
The proposal for a business-led solution to deal with economic growth in the regions appears sensible. In my area, however, local authority politicians on Conservative-led East Yorkshire council and Liberal Democrat-led Hull council have been squabbling among themselves. The business leaders have made it clear that they want a pan-Humber LEP that will bring the economy together on the north and south banks of the Humber. As I said, we have had the wonderful announcement from Siemens on the future of renewable energy in our area, but because of the way in which the local councils in East Riding and Hull are behaving, the business community has been left without an LEP; the Business Secretary would not agree to one because it did not have the support of the business community.
This just shows that the Government’s approach is flawed. My area desperately needs economic growth, yet it has been left with no LEP and with the council in Hull squabbling with the councils on the south bank of the Humber. We have great potential for growth in the renewable energy sector, but there is no co-ordinating force. The idea is that LEPs will lead us into the growth strategy that we all want to see, but that is not going to happen in my area.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I fear that the hon. Lady might be suffering from selective amnesia. My recollection is that, in 13 years of a Labour Government, the per capita public expenditure for the people of Hull was significantly higher than for most parts of the UK—it was certainly in the top quartile—yet educational attainment, housing, skills and health outcomes were all in the bottom quartile. Why does she think that was?
Diana Johnson
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, because of the additional funding that the Labour Government put in from 1997, huge strides were made in education in my city, with more children achieving at GCSE level and more young people going on to college and university. That is important because it links into the growth strategy. Unless we have an educated, skilled work force, employers will not be attracted into the area. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
What the Chancellor announced today is a return to the 1980s. As mentioned earlier, the detail on the enterprise zones is very sketchy and it looks like only limited resources will be available to the 21 areas granted this status. Hull, however, is not in the initial 10 announced today, which is very disappointing because Hull and the Humber is one area where I would have hoped the Government would see the need to invest in and support the economy for it to grow.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I am delighted that the hon. Lady is so supportive of our policy on enterprise zones. Perhaps she can encourage her local LEP to bid in the next round for one of them to be based in Humber and then to make a compelling case for the Humber to benefit from the policy.
Diana Johnson
With the greatest respect, if the Minister had listened to what I said, he would know that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who run the local authorities in my region cannot agree on an LEP, so there is not one. There is no procedure whereby anyone can lobby the Government for an enterprise zone. I question what will be delivered for local communities through an enterprise zone, and I also question how this policy fits with the localism agenda that the coalition is so keen to promote, whereby local areas are supposed to decide for themselves what they want to do and what best fits their particular needs. I question the announcement today, what it will mean and how it will help areas like the Humber.
I am also intrigued by this start-up Britain initiative. How is that going to help Yorkshire businesses? How is it going to help businesses in the Hull area? This start-up business sounds like a roadshow; I understand that the Prime Minister is going to tour around the country with some business leaders. If that is part of the growth strategy, then we have a long way to go.
Is this really a Budget for growth? I am concerned about some of the announcements that roll back people’s rights at work. A race to the bottom is not part of a sensible progressive growth strategy for our economy. We want high-skill jobs; we want a highly trained work force; and we want people treated properly in the workplace. Under the Labour Government, we married up social justice and economic efficiency from 1997 up until 2008, when we had the crisis with the bankers.
I am also concerned that women will lose out in this Budget. I was disturbed at Treasury questions yesterday when one of my hon. Friends raised the issue of how measures taken by the Treasury team were affecting women, only to have it dismissed along the lines of “We cannot possibly provide that information. We can only drill down to a household level. We can’t be gender specific.” In this day and age, the Treasury can be gender specific and should come clean on what these measures will mean for women and families.
Young people in Hull is another important issue. We are seeing a lost generation of NEETS—those not in education, employment or training. The coalition policies to remove education maintenance allowance and treble university fees will mean more and more young people deciding not to get the skills and the education that we all want them to have. It is a retrograde step when the Government pursue such an agenda against our young people.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
I am listening to what the hon. Lady says about young people not being given the skills they need and about NEETs. I do not know whether she was here earlier this afternoon when the Chancellor announced £200 million for 50,000 extra apprenticeships, which are targeted specifically at those young people who need training and skills to be able to get on the employment ladder.
Diana Johnson
Like all hon. Members, I think apprenticeships are an excellent idea. Employers in Hull, however, will tell anyone that the new criteria that have to be fulfilled to take on an apprentice mean that many of the young people cannot get into the workplace. They may be with a training provider, but actually finding an apprenticeship with a business is proving very difficult. I do not know where these 250,000 apprenticeships are going to come from. If the Government can do this, I say “Excellent, we are all supportive,” but to be honest, you are in la-la land—[Interruption.]—or, indeed, in the land of green ginger, which is another very good example.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
When the hon. Lady said “you are in la-la land”, she was, of course, referring to me!
Diana Johnson
I meant no disrespect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, I did not mean that.
Let me bring my remarks to a conclusion.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The hon. Lady said that employers did not seem to want to take up the offer of apprenticeships. She is entirely wrong. The Government’s current scheme, which will generate a further 40,000 apprenticeships over the next couple of years, is over-subscribed. How can she square that with what she said?
Diana Johnson
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not what I said. Employers in Hull tell me that the opportunities available to their businesses are limited because growth is so restricted, and that they therefore cannot take on apprentices. Meanwhile, providers tell me that they bring young people into the training centres, but then cannot find the apprenticeship places that would enable them to do their training.
There have been a good many academic debates today about what the Budget means—about bond markets and so forth—but in practical terms, for our constituents up and down the country, the real issues are connected with the cost of living. The rate of inflation in this country is now the highest in western Europe, people are worried about whether they will have jobs in the coming months, and there are problems with fuel duty. I am glad that the Government have been able to reduce fuel duty by 1p, but I find it rather ironic that the Conservatives are not able to challenge the European Union on VAT and derogation. Surely this is an opportunity for a party that is for ever wanting to take pot shots at the EU to do something constructive.
I believe that the deep cuts that are being made now will lead to social costs in the long term. It is dreadful that the coalition Government are targeting their cuts at communities in some of the most deprived areas, and at the most deprived and vulnerable groups in those communities. For instance, Hull city council’s early years service is being scrapped. We shall have no officers, no support for our nurseries, and no support for children in nurseries who have special educational needs, because the early intervention grant that the Government said would cover the cost of children’s centres and support for children under five does not do what it says on the tin. We shall end up with buildings that are open, with caretakers and receptionists, but with no children in them.
As I have said, the coalition Government’s cuts will store up a great many problems for the future. They utter plenty of fine words about the need for early intervention and support for families and communities, but they do not deliver the finance.
The Government strike me as a group of deficit deceivers and growth deniers who are making our country a less fair and secure place in which to live. Until 2008, the spending commitments of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) matched those of the Labour Government across the board. Only when the banking crisis arrived did the then Opposition take a different approach. The Liberal Democrat council in Hull took the view that the Labour Government should be spending far more on Hull, but now Kingston upon Hull council is losing 9% of its budget, while Kingston upon Thames is losing 3%. That is not fair. The Chancellor may stand up and talk about a fair Budget, but this is not a fair Budget; neither is it a Budget for growth.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. By convention, there are no time limits on speeches on Budget day, but many Members still want to take part in the debate. Any Member who speaks at excessive length—for more than about eight minutes, that is—will prevent others from contributing. I ask Members please to show some restraint. There will be other opportunities for them to speak during subsequent Budget debates.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will stick to the guidelines you have given. In fact, uniquely both in this House and in life generally, I find that I am speechless after listening to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). There is a holiday attraction somewhere called la-la land. I cannot remember who mentioned it but, obviously, it is nothing to do with Kingston upon Hull North. The picture the hon. Lady painted forgets who has been in power for the last 13 years and who has been responsible for a bloated public sector and a starved private sector, as well as for unemployment and all the other problems that many people, including the Chancellor, have spoken about today.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend as confused as I am given that the previous speaker started her speech by saying there are new jobs at Siemens in Hull, thereby showing that manufacturing is expanding under this new Government?
Richard Harrington
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but we heard about Siemens so long ago that it had slipped my mind.
I shall restrict my comments to my experiences in business of dealing with the economy, and the experiences of my constituents and their businesses in Watford. Watford is not dissimilar to Kingston upon Hull. It has significant unemployment and shares all the same problems as many other parts of the country. Notwithstanding the Chancellor’s commendable statement today, the most significant factor in encouraging businesses to invest is the general macro-economic situation. Therefore, the most important aspects of this Budget and the last Budget are the measures for reducing the deficit.
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman is making his speech in his usual eloquent style. Will he comment on why the growth forecasts have been revised downwards?
Richard Harrington
The comments that the hon. Lady somewhat generously applied to my erudition can also be applied to hers. To respond to her question on growth forecasts, we cannot select one figure and say that it makes a fundamental difference, because assessments of growth must be made over a period of time. In my experience, the most important factor for growth is the confidence people have in the economy, and that will definitely come about because of the Government’s sensible approach, as opposed to the reckless irresponsibility of their predecessor.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Is it not the case that in almost every recession that this country has had to fight its way out of, there have been choppy times and there has never been a smooth upward trajectory? It is always the case that some quarters are better than others.
Richard Harrington
With the possible exception of the la-la land factor, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I want to talk about some specific factors that are important to business people, and therefore important to growth. There is a lot of talk about banks and the availability of capital, and about what the Government should do and what they have not done. Again, I want to comment based on my experiences in the constituency. The bank lending situation is getting better; there is no doubt about that, as the loans are beginning to come through. In Watford alone, under the enterprise finance guarantee loan scheme, 23 companies have already borrowed money amounting to £4 million. That is a comparatively small sample and it reassures me for the future that this scheme, which is to be expanded, does work, and that it does so in a comparatively short period of time.
It is very fortunate for us that interest rates are low, but the decisions made by businesses do not change when fluctuations are minor, such as 1% up or 2% down. Their decisions do change when the situation reaches a ludicrous point; I was once left with a loan on which I was paying 2% over base when the base rate was 15%. Variations such as 1%, 3% or 5% make little difference. Again, what matters is confidence in the economy and confidence that the Chancellor has done the right thing today. So I must encourage what the Government are doing on the fundamentals, because people and businesses will want to borrow money only when there is confidence in the future and confidence that we are doing the right thing.
My next point relates to the availability of skilled staff. Despite the fact that 3.7% of people in Watford—more than 2,000 people—are on jobseeker’s allowance and 700 or 800 young people there are not in education, employment or training, I visit factories and businesses that cannot recruit staff of the right calibre every week. A few weeks ago, I visited Davin Optronics, a manufacturing company that uses skilled labour to make lenses—it deals with complicated stuff. Its fear was that its work force were getting older and younger people did not want to join manufacturing businesses. That is a fundamental issue and we have to change attitudes.
Helen Goodman
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that situation with his Government’s policy on tuition fees and the fact that this week children in this country are being told that they cannot take three sciences at GCSE because of the cuts to school budgets?
Richard Harrington
The hon. Lady and I were at university at broadly the same time, so we were very privileged. We could debate tuition fees for hours, but no matter what one’s arguments on that, the new regime has not changed the current situation and we are, thus, dealing with Labour’s policy on tuition fees at the moment. I would be happy to debate tuition fees with her on another occasion, but the real issue is that we have young people and older people who are unemployed, and we have vacancies in jobs that people will not go into. The Government’s efforts on work experience for young people—today’s announcement on that was tremendous—and on expanding the apprenticeships scheme are very important, as are the technical universities. I commend those efforts because we must have a work force who have the right skills. That is not solely about graduates; it is also about people who are leaving school and are doing apprenticeships and further education courses. What the Government are doing to help will change the availability of staff.
Richard Harrington
No, I must make progress.
I normally agree with everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is not in his place, and one might think that, as a Conservative Member, I would have an overwhelming interest in bureaucracy, labour laws, red tape and obstacles to business and that dealing with those things would be my top priority. However, important though they are, I think that they are secondary to the macro-economic factors—they are secondary to stability and the feeling of confidence. Germany is a classic example of that, because despite its labour laws and the fact that it has lots of regulation, manufacturing industry works well there. So I am very pleased that we are concentrating on the other issues.
I am keeping in mind your earlier comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I just wish to remind hon. Members that Watford is an average kind of constituency and so has 3,000 businesses, with eight being roughly the average number of people employed in them—these are predominantly small businesses. I believe that this Budget will help the long-term confidence for them, despite short-term growth forecasts, and so it is a Budget very much for the small business. It is also a Budget for the larger business, given the corporation tax measures. However, more importantly, it is a Budget for ordinary people and for their prospects. I believe that it is the best Budget that we could have, given the mess that the Government were left.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his time restraint.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in the same debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)—the new Member for that constituency—who will be a credit both to his constituents and to this House. We should listen carefully to his words and his warnings.
Today’s Budget is equally noticeable for what it does and does not include, because the Chancellor has not heeded the many warnings showing that the Government’s economic policies are not working. Gross domestic product figures for the last quarter of 2010 showed that our economy contracted by 0.6%. Government Members blamed the snow, but it snowed in Germany, yet its economy grew by 0.4%, and it snowed in the United States of America, yet its economy grew by 0.7%. The difference is that we are cutting too fast and too deep and they are not.
Another warning can be found in last week’s unemployment figures, which showed that unemployment is the highest it has been for 17 years and that youth unemployment is the highest on record. The OBR today showed that unemployment is set to rise to 8.2% this year and 8.1% next year—higher than it was even at the height of the recession. House prices continue to fall and yesterday we learned that the consumer prices index has increased to 4.4% and the retail prices index to 5.5%. There are many warnings that the Government’s policies are not working.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I have a quick question for the hon. Lady. Why, on the “Daily Politics” show approximately three hours ago, was she unable to name one measure in this Budget that Labour Front Benchers would vote against?
Rachel Reeves
We would like to vote, for example, on the bank bonus levy and other components of the Budget. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) set out today that we will consider areas of growth in “The Plan for Growth” green book. There are areas where we want to work with the Government but also areas where we disagree with what they are doing.
Given the warnings I have mentioned, it is hardly surprising that the independent OBR has today downgraded its growth forecast for 2011 to 1.7% and has revised growth for next year to 2.5%. Let us put that in context. Before the Chancellor’s first Budget last year, the OBR predicted growth in 2011 of 2.6%. That forecast has now been downgraded three times—to 2.3%, 2.1% and today to 1.7%. Every time the Chancellor gets to the Dispatch Box, the OBR has to downgrade its growth forecasts.
The Government will say that the only way to get growth back on track is to reduce the deficit, but we have also seen today that the OBR’s borrowing forecast is expected to be £44.5 billion higher over this Parliament as a result of lower growth and higher unemployment. Despite today’s opportunity to think again, however, the Chancellor will still not accept that plan A is not going to plan.
Although the Chancellor has no plan for growth, his implicit plan B, I think, was looser monetary policy, yet today’s Monetary Policy Committee minutes show a further split over whether to increase rates and yesterday’s inflation data show more pressure for a rate rise. Plan B is looking as forlorn as plan A, with householders likely to see a mortgage rate rise by the summer.
We have heard many times today that the Government cannot change course, but that is a fallacy. Jonathan Portes, the new director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, recently said that that intransigence
“relies on an odd view of market psychology, one that says markets have more confidence in governments that never adjust policy, even when it is sensible…history suggests the opposite: that the real hit to credibility comes from sticking to unsustainable policies”.
He is right. Now is the time—more than ever—for the Government to rethink their plan, which is sapping jobs and growth out of the economy.
We need to begin to build the Britain of the future, because confidence in UK plc requires a belief that we have a competitive economy that productively employs its resources, draws on our strengths across the sectors and regions and invests in science, skills, technology and infrastructure. Today’s Budget, however, does nothing to foster investment or hope. Although I welcome “The Plan for Growth”, which has been published today, and the announcements to relieve us of a further increase in fuel prices and to provide help for first-time buyers, the Chancellor could and should have done more.
Most of all, although the Chancellor has said repeatedly that he will be tough on the banks, page 103 of the Red Book shows that the bank bonus tax brought in £3.5 billion in 2010 whereas the bank levy will bring in just £1.9 billion this year. There is no guarantee that the banks will lend any more to small businesses because the Government agreed gross lending targets and no net lending targets. No wonder the Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, Lord Oakeshott, resigned, saying that if this was tough action, his name was Bob Diamond. The Government have washed their hands of any responsibility to help small businesses, which are being hit hard by the banks’ actions.
There are other areas where the Chancellor could have acted today. We need a plan for green jobs and there is still the potential for Britain to be a world leader, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out earlier, in the green technologies of the future, but the market requires certainty and we are losing the initiative to countries that are willing to provide it. We need action, not just words, on the green investment bank, yet today we found out that it will not be fully operational until 2015.
We need regional economic strategies. The regional growth fund is estimated to be 10 times over-subscribed, and with a two-thirds cut to regional economic investment, cities and towns across Britain are missing out on opportunities to grow and diversify their economies. We risk another overheating in London and the south-east while the potential powerhouses of the north of England are being left behind. Although I welcome the enterprise zones, the evidence from the 1980s shows that such approaches move, rather than create, jobs. Of course, the funding for enterprise zones is a fraction of what the regional development agencies had to spend.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that because the enterprise zones are being imposed on regions, unlike in London where the Mayor will decide where they are, entire areas of the north-east such as Northumberland and Durham will be completely excluded from them and the little help they will bring?
Rachel Reeves
I do agree. Of course, only half the plans were announced today, which was disappointing.
We need an approach to business taxation that fosters growth. Although the Government have trumpeted the cut in corporation tax, it has so far been funded at the expense of investment and manufacturing allowances, so while big businesses have benefited from a tax cut, start-up and investment-intensive firms have seen their taxes rise. If we are to create the jobs of the future, we need today’s entrepreneurs to innovate and that is where the limited funds should be targeted.
We also need greater investment in skills and education. Last year, 8 million people graduated from universities in China and India. No other country is cutting investment in universities, reducing the teaching grant by 80% and cancelling partnerships between business and universities, but that is what the Government are doing.
Last week, we heard that the youth unemployment figure is approaching 1 million and it beggars belief that the future jobs fund is closing its doors in the same month that youth unemployment has risen yet again. One in five young people—more in my constituency—now claims unemployment benefit. Today’s unemployment figures are likely to rise further and today’s Budget is bad news for young people up and down the country.
The public recognise the need for austerity, but they also want to know that the Government have learnt lessons from the crisis and are determined to build a fairer and more sustainable economic future. Britain could be a world leader in the jobs, technologies and industries of the future but only if the Government support growth. Today was the Chancellor’s opportunity to show that he understands the needs of businesses and families, but the OBR’s verdict was to downgrade growth for the third time in 2011 and for next year as well. The Government have ignored the wake-up calls. This Budget is a missed opportunity and I urge the Chancellor and his colleagues to think again about what is really needed to ensure that we emerge from this recession with a stronger, fairer economy for everyone in the country.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), but I am tempted to say that hers was a bit of a Blue Peter speech—here is one I prepared earlier. I am not sure that she has done anything other than regurgitate the line from the Whips Office.
Rachel Reeves
The main thrust of my speech was to point out that growth had been downgraded and we did not know that until today. It was only when we heard the Budget that we knew that growth had been downgraded, for the third time in a row, to 1.7%, so I could not have written it earlier.
Mr Jackson
I know that the hon. Lady has some expertise on these issues. She can rest assured that my criticism will be confined mainly to the Leader of the Opposition, who delivered a master class in opportunism and vacuity. His loquacity was in inverse proportion to his intellectual insight. In his 15 minutes of speaking, no policy whatever was articulated.
The Budget is supported by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and business leaders such as the deputy director of the CBI, John Cridland, and David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce. It is about the Government putting in place the conditions for sustainable, balanced economic growth. Let us remember that the Institute for Fiscal Studies still says that public finances remain in a critical condition, but we have had no alternative whatever from Her Majesty’s Opposition. Indeed, we might have to call in Professor Brian Cox, the noted cosmologist, to search for the black hole where the Labour economic policy should be.
Mr Jackson
I will make some progress; I am sure that I can let the hon. Lady in a bit later. The priorities of the Budget are primarily to reduce the deficit; rebalance the economy, which was left out of kilter by the Labour Government, with an over-concentration on financial services, the housing market and public expenditure; reform public services; and grow, via initiatives such as the green investment bank, green expertise, knowledge, skills and jobs. If I may give a plug, yesterday a collaboration was announced between Peterborough city council and Cranfield university on a centre for renewable energy and biofuels, to be based in Peterborough.
We need to move towards a high-wage, low-taxation economy with less pressure on household incomes, and the Budget provides a road map for that. No one denies that we have had to make some very tough decisions in the comprehensive spending review and in last year’s emergency Budget. There were real-terms cuts in departmental expenditure; the cut to departmental expenditure will be, on average, 11%. However, we should remember that between 1998 and 2010, there was a real-terms increase in budgets in each Department of anything between 2% and 8%. The fiscal tightening between now and 2015-16 will mean that we have to reduce public expenditure and put taxes up, with capital gains tax, tobacco, fuel, the bank levy, consumer prices indexation and child benefit affected. Contrary to received wisdom among Opposition Members, the richest 2% will be hit hardest by the tax benefit and other changes.
What choice do we have? Labour’s poisonous legacy and debt millstone left us with simply no alternative. In 2010-11, we had to borrow about £140 billion—perhaps around £10 billion less than expected. Only Ireland has a bigger cyclically adjusted deficit. Labour ran a structural deficit some seven years before the banking crisis in 2007-08, and we entered the financial crisis with the largest structural deficit in the G7. The national debt doubled between 1997 and 2010. In May last year, we were at significant risk of a downgrading in our international credit rating, with a catastrophic impact on public services, business and consumer confidence, a long period of stagflation, and a contraction in the economy.
Rachel Reeves
I want to enlighten the hon. Gentleman with two facts. First, in 1996, just before the Labour Government came into power, there was a structural budget deficit of 4%, whereas it was 2.5% in 2007. Secondly, he compares the UK economy with that of Greece, but does he recognise the figures that show that although bond yields in Greece increased from 7% to 12% between January and May 2010, in the UK, before the Conservatives came to power, they were falling?
Mr Jackson
The hon. Lady will know that the markets have recognised that the fiscal consolidation that the Government had to put in place as part of a policy of growth in the private sector and consolidation in the public sector has resulted in a lessening of the pressures in the gilt markets, with gilt yields down to 3.53% since May last year, and every 1% is £1 billion of interest payment. Of course, that is change in the pocket to Labour Members; we are spending £120 million on debt every day.
Mr Jackson
No, not at this moment.
To put that in context, £95 million could have been spent on schools each day, but we are servicing Labour’s debt, and we could be spending £35 million on police, £25 million on social care, and £90 million on defence. The entire budget deficit that the Labour party ran up in government is £42.7 billion. That is 40 Type 45 destroyers, 33 Astute class submarines, 42,700 MRI scans, or 1.3 million nurses. That is the reality of the appalling profligacy and mismanagement of the Labour Government. We do not hear alternatives. We hear a policy that is dishonest, incoherent and irresponsible. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) shares very few values, I imagine, with the former US President Ronald Reagan, who once said, “I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.” That sums up the Labour party’s attitude in government, and the deficit denial on the Opposition Benches now.
Even some sensible and pragmatic Labour supporters are troubled by the incoherence and the substitution of political opportunism for a realistic alternative policy. The erstwhile Cabinet member, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), said at the weekend:
“The public expects us to at least give a broad direction—but I think they are worried that we haven’t been as clear as we ought to be.”
She is absolutely right.
The former general secretary of the Labour party, Peter Watt, went further. In a rebuke to the institutionalised deficit denial of the shadow Chancellor, Mr Watt said on the labour-uncut website that Labour
“is . . . a highly toxic brand. . . we are still opposing every cut . . .It might make us feel better and win some short term popularity. But it isn’t an answer to the charge that we had become economically illiterate and had allowed massive overspending.”
If there is one lesson that I can offer the Labour party from our long period in opposition, it is this: rarely is it enough to be populist to win the respect of the electorate. That rarely forms the basis of a credible election strategy.
Helen Goodman
Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with a Budget to which the oil and gas industry responded this afternoon by expressing its shock and stating that the investment climate has been seriously damaged and the Budget will drive jobs away from this country?
Mr Jackson
That is one viewpoint from one group of people. Others, such as Baker Tilly, the tax accountants, say that it is an excellent Budget. So do the CBI, the OECD, other industry groups, house builders and others. [Interruption.] I am glad the hon. Lady thinks it is humorous that people are supporting my right hon. Friend’s Budget.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
One group of people who will welcome the measures in the Budget today is motorists. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures cutting fuel prices ensure that petrol prices will not only not affect motorists directly, but will not have an impact on the price of goods in the shop, which in turn will assist middle England?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. I lobbied the Chancellor myself, I campaigned for the policy and I am glad that he has listened to the views of people, many of whom rely on the car to travel to work. It is a matter of public record that had Labour been re-elected in May last year, petrol prices would have been going up an extra 6p. That would be the price of Labour’s profligacy.
I am delighted that we are taking more poor working people out of tax, and that we are creating local enterprise zones to drive regeneration in some of the more difficult economic areas of Britain. I am delighted, too, that we are tackling corporation tax and creating conditions in which business wants to relocate to the UK and create jobs.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
But does the hon. Gentleman not realise the great damage the Budget has done by saying to investors, “You come to the United Kingdom, you invest in success, you employ 450,000 people, you make 20% of the Exchequer’s corporation tax, and then, once you have made all that investment, the Government move the goalposts and whack up a huge extra tax on your industry”?
Mr Jackson
I fully understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s constituency interests. Were I in his position, I would make the same points. Clearly, when we are in a less than benign financial situation, clearing up the abysmal mess left by the Labour Government, we have to make difficult value judgments. To govern is to choose, and sometimes the choices made will not please everyone. I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, and I am sure the Chancellor and the Treasury Front-Bench team have heard his views.
Mr Jackson
No, I do not have time. Although other Members spoke for much longer, I will have to finish quickly.
I am delighted about the permissive nature of the reforms to the planning system and about the desperately needed initiatives for first-time buyers. It was extremely important that the mortgage market review of the Financial Services Authority was not going to choke off first-time buyers. Some figures show that 37 is now the average age at which young—less young—men and women buy their first homes. We had a significant housing boom in the 1990s and 2000s and need to encourage the house building industry to build more homes without choking off house prices or the capacity of young people to own houses and flats.
I am also delighted that residential estate investment trusts will be looked at. We need to clarify the regulations relating to brownfield remediation, which is an important part of bringing back into use residential and commercial sites. In future Budgets we need to think carefully about giving tax incentives for saving to first-time buyers so that they can build up moneys for a deposit in preparation for buying a home. We also need to look at stamp duty land tax. I am pleased that we are beginning to look at self-invested personal pensions in relation to people’s capacity to invest in the housing market.
In conclusion, the Government have had the courage and determination to take tough decisions and to prepare the ground for economic recovery. A credible plan to deal with our record budget deficit is an absolute precondition for growth. The Chancellor is right to strive for a balanced Budget and a firm and consistent strategy that will deliver for ordinary families in my constituency and across the country lower taxes, more jobs, better living standards and a renaissance in our international competitiveness. That is the only way to achieve future prosperity, which is why on Tuesday I will be supporting the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The debate will finish promptly at 7 pm.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I was going to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but we have heard a succession of speeches from Government Members that were not only economically illiterate, but stuck to the rhetoric pumped out during the general election. They seem unable to get away from that rhetoric even when the reality of what this country is facing hits them. We heard a rant from the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and, frankly, a very strange speech from the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who clearly had read something about the gilt market but did not quite understand how it works.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on an excellent maiden speech. I think he will be a great asset to the House. He is a man of great courage in both his private and personal life and in the service of this country. I look forward to many more contributions of the standard he gave today.
I would like to focus on two issues: the lack of a policy for growth in the Budget and how that will not affect positively the economy of the north-east of England. Growth figures for the last quarter of 2010 show that the economy contracted by 0.6%, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). The Government blamed snow for that, but she eloquently pointed out some great examples of economies that grew despite having weather that was far worse than it was in this country.
On top of that, last week we saw a 17-year high in unemployment, set against a continuing fall in house prices and an increase in inflation to 4.4%. It would not take an astrologer, as was mentioned earlier, or a genius to work out that the OBR was going to have to downgrade its growth forecast today. Initially, it said that growth would be 2.6%; then, that it would be 2.1%; and today, that it will be 1.7%. The lack of growth is the main risk to our economy, and let us be honest, the Budget was spun so much that we could have read or predicted most of it before the Chancellor even stood up at the Dispatch Box today to announce it.
The Government also say that the key thing they have to do is to reduce borrowing, but borrowing is now going up, so even by their standards the economic pill is clearly not working. What is happening now is both risky and dangerous to the UK economy, and, although history cannot be repeated precisely, we need to look back, because one of the key lessons we have learned from the 1920s and ’30s is that recovery from large financial crises is delicate, slow and stuttering. Now, as a precise result of this Government’s policies since May, growth is down and unemployment, borrowing and inflation are up.
Rachel Reeves
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, who says:
“Unless advanced countries can count on stronger private demand, both domestic and foreign, they will find it difficult to achieve fiscal consolidation”?
Mr Jones
Yes. That is the entire flaw in the Government’s policy: the idea that they can cut public expenditure as deeply and savagely as they are going to, and that somehow jobs will be created in the private sector—something that will just not happen. It might happen in parts of the economy, but there is certainly no indication that it will happen in my region. In fact, the situation is even worse, because Durham university’s model shows that taking out 20% of the public services will lead to 50,000 jobs going in the north-east, with 20,000 of them actually in the private sector. Replacing those jobs, in addition to the 30,000 in the public sector, is going to be very difficult.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the growth figures are wrong, the impact will be magnified and multiplied the further one moves away from the south-east of England? The impact on regions of the United Kingdom will be much more severe if the Chancellor has got it wrong.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but do the Conservatives care? No, I do not think they do. We saw that in the 1980s and early 1990s in the north-east of England. His constituents will face similar problems to constituents in the north-east, given the contraction of public sector jobs, which will have a direct impact on the private sector. Trying to attract business and growth to those areas will be very difficult, and I fear that we could have a two-speed Britain: a reasonably prosperous south-east of England, but stagnant or even declining regions, such as the north-east and Northern Ireland. Does the Conservative party care about that? No, I do not think it does.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the fact that, even with Labour’s slower rate of deficit reduction, he could not have avoided a significant decrease in the number of public sector jobs to meet his party’s own projections of how it would reduce the deficit?
Mr Jones
I find that hard to stomach, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because he is giving succour to the proposals before us, which could damage the north-east economy more severely than even those in Thatcher’s day. He is looking both ways, as a Liberal saying one thing in the region, and then coming here and supporting and voting for a Conservative Government who are putting the proposals forward. [Interruption.] I will tell him exactly why. What we would not have done is put forward his and his party’s ludicrous proposal to abolish the regional development agency, One North East.
The right hon. Gentleman now has to defend his ludicrous policy on local enterprise partnerships, which I shall come to later. He struggled to get re-elected this time; I doubt whether the voters of Berwick will re-elect him if he stands next time. It is important to remember that none of this could have happened without the Liberal Democrats blindly going along and supporting those savage cuts, which will have a terrible effect on a region I know he actually cares deeply about.
Another major aspect of the current economic situation is inflation. The Bank of England is stuck between a rock and hard place. Interest rates are as low as they can go, and quantitative easing is continuing, yet the inflation target is way above where it should be. It is difficult to know what the Bank will do.
We continue to hear, as we have heard several times this afternoon, that there is no alternative to this approach. I am sorry, but there is a definite alternative. We also hear that the fact that we are in this mess is all down to a Labour Government—that only Britain went through the recession in 2008, while the rest of the world did not, and that we got into the position we did only because of Labour’s reckless spending and financial management. I want to put some facts on the record. Conservative Members use a lot of rhetoric and soundbites; the famous one from the Prime Minister was that Labour did not mend the roof while the sun was shining. In fact, we did, because when we came to power in 1997, the level of debt was nearly 50% and we reduced it. I remember the tremendous debate within my party when we sold off the 3G licences. People said that we should use that money to fund public expenditure, but the then Chancellor took the very good decision to drive down the level of debt. That left us, going into the economic downturn, in the strong position of having the lowest debt, unemployment and inflation in the G7, and the highest investment from overseas.
Was it right to transform and invest in our public services over those 13 years? Yes, it was. They have been transformed in many parts of this country, certainly in my constituency. When I was first elected in 2001, the hospital in Chester-le-Street was in the old workhouse. We now have a brand-new hospital in Chester-le-street, as well as three others in the area. We have six or seven new primary care centres in County Durham. That is a direct result of public investment. When the economic crisis hit, did we have to respond to that by borrowing? Yes, we did. Was it the right thing to do? Yes, it was.
At the time of the crisis at Northern Rock, if we had followed what the Conservatives, including the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, wanted to do, which was basically to let it fold, we would have had a far worse situation, with a banking crisis that would have devastated not only Northern Rock but every other bank. The then Chancellor put in place a package to support banks, subsidise mortgages, cut VAT, fund apprenticeships, and give people money to buy new cars and stimulate the economy—and it worked. If people want to look for the evidence for that, there is the growth of the economy in the months prior to, and just after, the general election.
Contrast that with what we have now—a Government who do not have a growth strategy and are wedded to a strategy that they feel it would be politically weak to go away from, repeating time and again that there is no alternative. I ask Conservative Members to reflect on what they would have done at that time. Last weekend, the Chancellor said that we were in this financial state because of a decade of over-expenditure by the Labour party. Well, the Conservatives supported our spending targets right up until 2008, so they cannot have it both ways. I ask them to look at the facts rather than what central office spun during the election campaign, which, unfortunately, some of them are continuing to repeat.
Sajid Javid
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that one should look at the facts. Is he aware that the spending cuts over this parliamentary period are only 3.7%—0.9% a year—in real terms, which is lower than the spending cuts that were implemented by Denis Healey, a former Chancellor? On that basis, would he still describe them as swingeing, drastic or tough cuts?
Mr Jones
I am sorry, but yes I would. If hon. Members are going to make comparisons, they should compare like with like. Whoever writes the central office briefings does one thing all the time. They compare our economy with that of Greece or, as the hon. Gentleman just did, they compare the British economy today with that of the 1970s. That is complete nonsense.
The central point—some Liberal Democrats are starting to wake up to this, including the Deputy Prime Minister—is that although there is a need and a desire to reduce the deficit, there is also an ideological drive to have a smaller state and to put into practice the ideological prejudices that the Conservatives have yearned to implement for many years. The people of this country will suffer from that. Is there an alternative? Yes, there certainly is.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
This trip down memory lane is very interesting, but, if he does not support the expenditure cuts, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much more he thinks we as a nation should be borrowing?
Mr Jones
Something that the central office spin machine does very well, and which Thatcher did, is somehow to compare the national economy to somebody’s personal expenditure. Can we afford to borrow at the moment? Yes, we can. Borrowing to invest in infrastructure and other things is the right thing to do, and is exactly what we were doing in government. We are increasingly borrowing not to invest in the economy and infrastructure and to add to the country’s economic power, but to support unemployment. That is exactly what the Major Government found in their dying days.
It is important to recognise that unemployment in the north-east has reached 10.2%, and that is before the real effects of the public expenditure cuts work their way through. The idea of economic zones or business development zones, or whatever they are called, was announced in the Budget, along with the local enterprise partnerships. One North East was very successful in regenerating the north-east economy. It actually moved the economy away from the public sector and grew the private sector. It had real money. It had £180 million a year, and worked with the local university sector and local authorities to spend European regional development funding. The LEPs have no money attached and the regional growth fund has £1.4 billion to be competed for around the country. Today, we have the enterprise zones.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Government have said that they want enterprise zones to support real growth and long-term sustainability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the announcement of an enterprise zone for Tyneside means little for growth or sustainability when the Transport Secretary has said that he will not provide funding for the much-needed upgrade of the A19 Silverlink interchange, which businesses have told politicians is essential for the economic development of Tyneside and the wider region?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The interventions are becoming very long. I have said that we are under real time constraints, as Mr Jones knows as well.
Mr Jones
I do know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is important to get these things on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) makes a good point. The two enterprise zones for the north-east will be in Tyneside and the Tees valley. That important piece of infrastructure is somehow supposed to be funded by the private sector, but that is exactly the kind of public expenditure that should be going into the region to create jobs and regenerate infrastructure. My concern about the enterprise zones is that places such as Durham and Northumberland have been left out. If we look back at the old enterprise zones, we see that all we got from them was a shovelling around of businesses and artificial borders. The zones will make it very difficult to attract inward investment to Durham and Northumberland.
As has been said, page 42 of the Red Book shows that funding for the 22 enterprise zones will add up to about £1 million each over their lifetime, which will not in any way help the regeneration of either Tyneside or Teesside. We will have the talking shops of the local enterprise partnerships, but no real money to do anything. The disastrous situation at the moment is that we have £106 million of European regional development fund but no money for One North East, local authorities or universities to match fund projects. The Government’s regional strategy is in a complete and utter mess, and the Budget will do nothing to assist.
One issue that has already been raised is—
Mr Jones
If the hon. Gentleman continues, I might go on for a bit longer, so he must be clever and not do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, it has been billed that the Government have somehow saved the motorist by reducing tax by 1p, but the effects of paying for that will be disastrous for the oil industry in this country, including Scotland. They will be disastrous for the north-east, as it relies heavily on Teesside and Tyneside to supply the expanding gas and oil fields, which need long-term investment. It is completely and utterly irresponsible to throw a spanner into the works of the investment in developing some of the most difficult oil and gas fields in the North sea.
Dame Anne Begg
Does my hon. Friend agree that the danger of today’s proposals is that they might fatally undermine the whole North sea offshore sector, which is fragile anyway because the geology makes it difficult to get the oil out? As a result, the country may lose even more money, because the sector is a huge taxpayer. As my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), said, 20% of all corporation tax is paid by the industry. What is being done today could put that in jeopardy.
Mr Jones
I agree, and there will also be a direct impact on jobs in oil exploration and in the booming oil supply business in Tyneside and Teesside. The short-term measure to try to get the Government out of a political fix on petrol prices will cause deep and long-term damage to jobs in the north-east and in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
The first-time buyer scheme, which the Red Book states will cost £250 million for just one year, will not help the north-east in any great way, because it will clearly be concentrated where a large number of houses are being built—the south-east and other areas. Because the Government have removed housing targets and affected social landlords’ ability to build new houses through the ham-fisted way in which they have structured the financing of social house building, I doubt whether there will be much effect on the north-east.
I also note that none of the £200 million additional investment in regional railways will go further than Leeds. Investment schemes for railways in the north-east—I have been calling for extra capacity for people to commute into Tyneside from Chester-le-Street and other places—will clearly not be forthcoming.
Finally, I wish to mention armed forces pay. The Chancellor said that there would be a £250 uplift for those in the armed forces earning less than £21,000. I remind the House that that is from the same Government who have frozen armed forces pay for the next two years. In addition, they have changed the calculation from RPI to CPI, which will cost many thousands of servicemen and women huge sums of money over the coming years. The Government should not be proud of that. I get rather annoyed because if the previous Government had done that, when I was a Defence Minister, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would have howled us down and called us a disgrace.
Is this a Budget for growth? No, it is not. Will it help the north-east of England? No, it will not. Under the confused regional policy that is proposed, which is supported by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the north-east, we will find that as the country’s economy declines and contracts, regions such as ours will go from the very bad position that they are in now to an even worse one.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I will be a Jones who shows some brevity out of courtesy for his colleagues on both sides of the House.
I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget and congratulate him on it, because this is a difficult time to be a Chancellor and to deliver a Budget, as it will be for the rest of this Parliament. As much as Opposition Members like to deny it, the Chancellor is constrained by the straitjacket of the deficit and the debt left behind by Labour. We must view the Budget in context. We are paying £120 million a day in interest alone on our debt—£43 billion this year, which is more than we spend on the armed forces, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development combined—which is a scandal.
I therefore commend the Chancellor for what is, in the circumstances, a first-rate Budget. It goes some way to recognising the financial pain that is being felt in the country, and serves to set a clear tone for the business community. This Government take businesses far more seriously. They recognise that people and businesses and not the state create jobs—sustainable jobs—and that if we are not serious about business, the country cannot sustain in a settled fashion the important public services on which we all rely.
There are positives in the Budget for individuals and businesses, but I shall also respectfully mention one or two concerns about it. I welcome the announcement on fuel, which is currently the biggest issue for my constituents. People will tonight breathe a sigh of relief that the 5p a litre increase programmed into the Budget by the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), has been deferred. I am delighted that that has happened. People will also breathe a sigh of relief that the Government recognised the importance of that, and decided to get off the escalator at the right time, unlike the previous Government, who did not know when to get off, as we saw in 2000 when our fuel depots were blockaded by truckers and angry motorists, which I hope will not happen now.
Mr Jones
I am not giving way, I am afraid, because certain Members have taken far too long in the debate, thereby stifling others.
I am delighted that the personal tax allowance has been increased to more than £8,000 this coming year. It is vital that we free people from the shackles of tax, particularly those on lower incomes. It is excellent that 1.1 million people will be lifted out of income tax altogether—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) does not understand. The previous Government shackled people to income tax. They increased the minimum wage way above inflation year on year, but they did not increase the personal allowance, which meant that more and more people were sucked into income tax.
Mr Jones
No. I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.
Moving on, I welcome the help that we are giving first-time buyers, although I would ask those on the Front Bench to consider a couple of issues. Can we build the properties that we need to sustain the scheme quickly enough? Would it be better to extend the scheme to older properties, as well as new-build properties? First-time buyers are the lifeblood of the property market and of any chain. I acknowledge that the policy will do a lot of good for the building industry, but we also need to put in place measures to ensure that the property market can sustain itself. Currently it is under intense pressure. Expanding the policy to cover the property market as a whole will do a lot of good and improve the situation for the industries that rely on it.
I make a plea for the Chancellor to look at stamp duty land tax in his next couple of Budgets, because it is quite punitive in terms of the slab rate, particularly up at the £250,000 threshold. Over this Parliament, if not during the next one, we need to look at putting in place changes to stamp duty land tax that result in more marginal rates, just as we have different levels of income tax.
I also make a plea for anything that is done in the property market to be implemented as quickly as is practically possible. Back in 2008, the Labour Government introduced a stamp duty holiday, but if I recall rightly, they suggested in the press that they were doing so about six or eight weeks before it was actually implemented. That had a dramatic and devastating effect on the property market and those involved in it during that interim period. Therefore, we need to ensure that we are expeditious in implementing policies.
This has been a great Budget for business, within the constraints that the Government face. I would like to mention fuel again. Many small and medium-sized hauliers in my constituency are struggling to cope with increases in the price of fuel. In the main, they have to pay for fuel at the pump, but they are not paid by those for whom they work for 60 to 90 days. I am sure that they will welcome the Chancellor’s announcement today.
Regulation is one of the biggest banes of business, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, and costs them £80 billion a year, so they will welcome a reduction in red tape and regulation. They will also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is looking to reduce regulation in the European Union to make it more competitive as a whole, which is vital. I hope that Government Members will continue to press the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to ensure that those plans bear fruit, because they are important to freeing up our businesses and allowing them to expand and employ more people.
I want to mention the beer and pub industry. I am slightly disappointed that in today’s Budget we have not sought to do anything about the beer duty escalator introduced by the previous Government. Since 2008, beer duty has increased by 26%. Unfortunately, we have not looked to soften that blow today. However, I hope that those on the Front Bench will listen to what I am saying and look to soften the blow for both the brewing industry and the pub industry. We have hundreds of thousands of pubs closing every year. Our great British pub is under pressure, and we should look to support it. I hope those on the Front Bench will take that on board.
Finally, I want to mention the advances that we are making on skills, which are vital to ensuring that our work force can sustain the jobs that we will hopefully help to create in the economy with the additional measures that the Chancellor has mentioned this afternoon. It is fantastic that we will have another 250,000 apprenticeships over the next four years. I am heartened by that, because young people have for so long been cast adrift, and this will help to bring them into employment and training in a sustainable way, and also in a way that will perhaps enable them to garner the knowledge to create their own businesses one day and employ others, which is what we have seen over many years.
I welcome the university training colleges, and I am sure that the large industrial companies in the west midlands will welcome that approach. I hope that it will help people to acquire the skills to fill what those companies are describing at the moment as a void. Companies such as Jaguar Land Rover want to expand greatly, and they need a supply of skills to sustain any such expansion. They need skills from local people in the west midlands. We do not want to bring in people from other countries to fill that void.
Given the constraints that the Government are having to work under—it was far from a golden legacy that we inherited from Labour—this is a positive Budget with good intentions for business and for creating jobs with substance. It also contains measures to bring back to this country the prosperity that has been badly needed for many years.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is an honour to participate in the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made his maiden speech. He made a really excellent contribution.
I want to comment on two aspects of the Chancellor’s statement: first, on inflation and the cost of living that people in Wirral and elsewhere are facing; secondly, on young people and employment. On inflation and the cost of living, we all need to acknowledge the global pressures that are causing price increases in the shops. Those pressures, including what is happening in the middle east and the price of food and other basic materials, make it more important that we get our policy right domestically. We have recently seen CPI inflation rise to 4.4% and RPI inflation rise to 5.5% in the UK, yet inflation for the EU as a whole is 2.8%. This picture of increased prices must also be taken into consideration in the context of our constituents whose wages are being held down. People have not seen an increase in their pay packets, but they are seeing price increases in the shops.
What is causing this inflation? I am well aware of the structure for setting interest rates and controlling price increases, and I look to the Governor of the Bank of England for an explanation as to why inflation has moved away from the targets. He says that
“three factors can account for the current high level of inflation: the rise in VAT relative to a year ago, the continuing consequences of the fall in sterling in late 2007 and 2008, and recent increases in commodity prices”.
He cites the Tory tax hike as having played a part in building inflation. My worry is not just about inflation this year, however; it is about people’s expectations of building inflation and the permanent hit that they will have on families.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Alison McGovern
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind; I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
Labour rightly instigated a temporary reduction in the rate of VAT to help us through the downturn, but I am now worried because the Tory-led Government have implemented a permanent hike in the prices that ordinary people in my constituency face in the shops. That is clearly having a huge impact on our economy and threatening future growth, as has been illustrated by the reduction in the growth forecast.
On the increase in commodity prices which has also caused inflation, the Chancellor said in his statement that the UK would seek to have an impact on those prices through the G20. It is therefore incumbent on Ministers to explain how they are going to engage with our international partners to achieve that. There is no doubt that those worldwide events are having an impact on the streets of Bromborough, Bebbington, Heswall and New Ferry in my constituency, and I would like to know what action the Government are going to take in that regard.
I shall deal briefly with young people and employment. I know that Members across the House care about the issue, but we need to bring some words of caution to the debate. The Chancellor rightly reserved extra funds for the future training of apprentices, but money reserved does not equal apprentices hired. Other factors are necessary for getting young people into employment. The first, business confidence, is vital: businesses must have the confidence to invest. I refer hon. Members to what I said about the in-built inflationary expectations in the economy and what they might do to investment. It is a matter of great concern. A second necessary factor is growth, and it is worrying to see growth forecasts revised downwards. The Chancellor might have said that this was a Budget for growth, but I feel that it was all words and very little action. A final necessary factor is a change in culture, whereby businesses feel that it is their role to bring on the next generation. The current generation at work should be allowed to share their skills in the informal setting of the workplace to bring on the next generation.
I highlight, as always, the role of my own local authority. Wirral has shown great leadership in the sphere of encouraging small and medium-sized businesses to take on apprentices. However, the local authority cuts, which have been much greater in our area than in others, have put Wirral’s ability to play this role in jeopardy. The Government need to think about how they will bring about this change of culture in practice rather than simply reserve the funds and say they are there if business wants to take them.
Finally, I fear that Britain is seeing the end of any interventionist role for the Government. I feel strongly that the future jobs fund was an excellent answer to youth unemployment, but the Government have withdrawn from it. They say they are reserving funds for apprentices, but they are doing little more than that to encourage businesses to invest. We are also seeing inflationary pressures on the cost of living, which the Governor of the Bank of England relates to the rise in VAT. This is a price hike that hard-pressed families in Wirral and elsewhere can little afford. On those two issues that I have prioritised, I would like to see Ministers taking much more action.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her time restraint.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
May I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that of other hon. Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my interests in venture capital and small businesses? I would also like to join others in praising the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his maiden speech, which I thought was eloquent, relevant and insightful.
Unfortunately, I cannot apply those three adjectives to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which is a great shame. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) during Monday’s debate on the UN resolution, I thought he spoke as a serious statesman on behalf of not only his own party, but the whole country. Today, however, I am afraid that his speech was more like a pantomime act than a serious contribution. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will provide a better and more insightful response tomorrow. It is a shame because the people of Bedford and Kempston want to hear not what is not going to be done, but what is going to be done. They heard very clearly from the Chancellor what he was going to do.
It is not my job to tell Opposition Members to do their job, but I think it is time that we heard from them what they would do, which I did not hear. Up until the last speech by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), I had not heard that at all. If Members are challenged and accept that there is a deficit, it is important for them honestly to come forward and say what steps and measures they would cut. They should not just throw out the next unfunded commitment in response. That does not help achieve consensus in what are very difficult times.
In addition, we are done a disservice because Labour Members’ failure to atone makes their constant outcries sound like a masquerade of keening by discredited professional mourners of the past. It would be much more insightful if they were able credibly to engage in the issue of how to get the deficit back under control. As their own unofficial website, labour uncut says, their current strategy of
“Hang on, I haven’t decided”
does not answer the needs of the time.
Richard Fuller
I shall be interested to see how Opposition Members respond to what my hon. Friend has said.
I would subject the Budget to the tests specified by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central: the impact that it will have on the most vulnerable, and what it will do for growth. It is difficult to introduce deficit reduction measures that do not disadvantage the poorest. What the hon. Member for Wirral South said about the impact of rising prices on people who were not receiving increases in their pay packets was absolutely right. I say to Ministers that—not necessarily for the purposes of the current year, but certainly as we look forward to next year and the year after that—we must think very carefully about what we will do for public sector workers who have experienced a pay freeze in at least one year, and in some cases in a number of years. Members on both sides of the House will want to hear a little more about that.
As I said earlier when I intervened on the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the issue of the mobility component of disability living allowance is also of vital interest to Members in all parts of the House. We must ensure that we protect the most vulnerable people in our care homes. I have met the Minister responsible for the disabled—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller)—on many occasions, and I know that she shares my passionate interest in that subject.
In the context of protecting the most vulnerable, let me first urge Ministers to continue to give full support to the welfare reform measures that are being pushed through by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The universal credit will be of major, long-term, significant and beneficial advantage to low-paid and poor people in our country, and it is a measure that those on the Treasury Bench should support in the years ahead.
Secondly, I should have liked to hear a little more about support for our charities. I was very pleased to hear about the £550 million of support that the Chancellor was offering to them in the form of various benefits, but I should have liked him to be more radical. There are many steps that we can take to ease the rules and regulations and break down some of the barriers that prevent social investment from various sources. We should be a bit more open in relation to the way in which money can flow from social investment to outcomes and social impact bonds. I should have liked to hear about personal tax deductions for charitable donations, and I should very much like the Treasury—either directly or through the big society bank—to help charities to procure local government services. They need that support to arm them in their continuing battles with bureaucracies.
The Budget expresses strong support for those who wish to invest in our small businesses. It strongly supports angel investment and mentoring. Small businesses and entrepreneurs want support from people—from local people who may have started up their own businesses—and we will seek to provide it in Bedford and Kempston. We will seek to bring together successful local business people who can provide financial support through the advantages offered by the Budget in terms of angel investment, and through mentoring to provide guidance and advice so that small businesses can grow.
The Budget challenges us. As many other Members have said, we are about to be tested, and to go through very difficult times. It is important for Members on both sides of the House to argue constructively, but we should also rest on the great creativity and ingenuity of our small business people and entrepreneurs, because they offer the future that will achieve growth in this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for exercising time restraint.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I shall try to honour the time constraints that you have imposed Mr Deputy Speaker.
Today the United Kingdom has the highest inflation since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The RPI stands at 5.5% and the CPI at 4.4%. Today the United Kingdom has seen the Chancellor announce a lowering of the growth forecast from the 2.6% predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility last year and the 2.3% in the last Budget to 1.7% today. Today the United Kingdom has the highest unemployment since 1984, when John Major had just taken over from Margaret Thatcher. This is not a Budget for growth into the future. It is a Budget that will take us back to the future of Margaret Thatcher and John Major.
Inflation at 5.5% has a devastating impact on families in the UK, as £1 in every £20 that they earn is now lost. For example, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave up an enormous 24% of her departmental budget to the Treasury over this spending period, but inflation has now turned that into a real-terms cut of 31%. Have Treasury Ministers commissioned, or do they intend to commission, any research into the capacity of Departments to deliver on their performance indicators, given the effects of rising inflation on the departmental spending cuts that have already been incurred?
It is risible that this Budget has been delivered by a Government who style themselves the greenest ever. The establishment of the green investment bank has been delayed until 2012, and it is still unclear whether it can fully function as a bank or whether it will simply be a glorified fund. The carbon reduction commitment has already outraged the CBI and British business. Instead of rewarding energy-efficient businesses and returning £1 billion to business, as the Labour Government proposed when we introduced the scheme, the Treasury has shifted the goalposts and taken all of the money to itself. I had thought that the implementation of the scheme had been delayed until 2012-13, and that was certainly what was announced to business, but I see from measure O in table 2.2 on page 44 of the Red Book that the Government are now forecasting £715 million of revenue to the Treasury in 2011-12 from that scheme that only goes live in 2012-13. I ask Treasury Ministers to reconcile that anomaly.
The carbon floor price appears on the face of it to be a positive green measure, but in fact it betrays the lack of coherence in Government thinking on this area. The Government’s electricity market reform recognises the need to incentivise 18 GWe of new generation capacity in the UK by 2024. That is the equivalent of £200 billion of investment between now and 2020. As Ministers know, much of this generation capacity will come from gas. At a stroke, the Government have pushed away the very investors they sought to attract. They are now likely to encourage more imports and external dependency. Why should European generators generate in the UK when they can generate abroad with no such tax upon them, and then benefit from higher UK prices by use of the interconnectors? One element of the Government’s energy market reform strategy has been to increase the use of interconnectors. As a result of this step, investment will be pushed into France, Belgium and the Netherlands. There is incoherence at the heart of the Government’s thinking on this matter.
I did not support the Government in the Lobby on Monday night in the vote on military action in Libya. I pay tribute to our armed services, and to their valour and the work they do, but I cannot support the cost of the military escapade taking place in Libya, and I look to what could have been achieved if the funds being expended there were instead being expended around the rest of our country.
Barry Gardiner
No, I will not.
One Tomahawk missile costs £350,000, and 140 of them were launched in the first 48 hours of the attack, which amounts to a cost of £50 million. It is estimated that the cost of prosecuting this military conflict is £6 million each day. The cost of one day of action in Libya could restore in its entirety the £2.25 million of cuts in children’s services forced on my community in Brent by this Liberal-Conservative coalition Government. One month in Libya could protect children’s services across the whole of London. Nine months in Libya could protect children’s services across the entire UK. Aneurin Bevan once said that priorities is the language of socialism. Those are my priorities and that is why I will oppose this Budget.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on an excellent maiden speech.
I would describe this Budget as healthily underwhelming. I say “healthily” because it recognises that private sector growth is crucial to our future prosperity. I say “underwhelming” because it reiterates the need to continue our fiscal consolidation, and I congratulate the Chancellor on keeping on course with that. The Budget recognises the terrible economic inheritance that this Government were given. Our first Budget was a rescue mission, whereas this Budget is about a desire to build on the foundations for economic growth. Our budget deficit was 11% of GDP—it still is, because the cuts have not yet really begun—and the largest of any major country. Our national debt grew by 150% over the 13 years of the Labour Government to £893 billion by the time they left office. If we add the costs of the banking interventions to that, we find that our national debt is more than £2.1 trillion, according to the Office for National Statistics. That means that our debt as a percentage of GDP is on a par with that of both Lebanon and Jamaica. Our interest rate costs are £120 million a day and £43 billion in total this year, and they will rise each and every year in this Parliament to £66.8 billion. Although Labour Members may be in denial, I am glad to see that the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the CBI and the Institute for Fiscal Studies are not.
What compounds our problems and the need for this continued fiscal consolidation is the very uncertain global outlook. The eurozone is still in trouble, as I found when I checked the bond market yields of some eurozone countries this morning. Despite the bail-outs, Greece’s yields are more than 13% and Ireland’s are more than 10%. Portugal is going through a parliamentary test today, and its yields are more than 7.85%. Our five-year bond yields are at 2.37%, despite our having the largest budget deficit of all the countries that I just mentioned. The emerging markets are also causing particular problems for our growth prospects, with things slowing down in China, India, Brazil and Russia—China has hiked rates twice in the past few months. We have relied on economic growth in that country to help our own export industry, so we need to keep an eye on the situation.
Lastly, as has been mentioned, in particular by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), there is concern about global inflation. Clearly inflation has been caused primarily by rises in the price of oil, metals and food, but in the UK, in particular, devaluation has had an impact. It has had a positive impact on exports, but it tends to import inflation too. What has not been mentioned today is the potential impact of quantitative easing—the policy of buying up to £200 billion of both corporate bonds and gilts. That has an impact on the money supply in this country and it is doubtless having an impact on inflation.
With RPI inflation at 5.5%—the figure was published yesterday—and our gilt rate at 2.37%, the real rate of return is negative on our bond markets and that is a very fragile situation for the markets. To put that into context, the last time that RPI inflation was at that level was in 1991. At that time, our five-year gilt rate was at 10.09%. Clearly if the markets woke up one day and decided that they were not going to accept such low negative interest rates any more, we would be in a much worse predicament. That underlines the need for continued fiscal consolidation.
On the Budget itself, I note that the Red Book shows that spending continues to increase in cash terms from £694 billion to £744 billion by the end of this Parliament and that in real terms the actual fall in public spending is 3.7%. I do not want to belittle such a decline in real terms, but it is certainly not the type of savage cut that has been mentioned by certain commentators and by Opposition Members. In fact, it is about 0.9% a year, less than the cuts made by Denis Healey when he was Chancellor.
I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that he will consider merging the operation of national insurance and income tax. National insurance was introduced by David Lloyd George 100 years ago on the contributory principle, which hardly applies to national insurance today. It makes absolute sense to consider merging its operation with that of income tax so that we can reduce administration and compliance costs and increase transparency. Many times in the past, a Chancellor has stood at the Dispatch Box on Budget day and said that he is not increasing income taxes but has gone on to increase national insurance. That transparency will be welcome and in future it might lead to greater downward pressure from the general public on personal tax levels.
That measure would also add to the simplification of our tax code, which is critical, especially when it comes to helping businesses. Our tax code has doubled in size since 1997, with a guide almost 2,000 pages long, and it is equivalent to 10 copies of Tolstoy’s novel, “War and Peace”.
Last year, I welcomed the Chancellor’s commitment that the 50p income tax rate will not be a permanent feature of the tax system and I urge him, when he reviews the tax rate, to consider it in the same way as he considered capital gains tax when it was raised from 18% to 28%. A dynamic analysis was carried out at that time and perhaps such an analysis could be done of the 50p rate to show that it does not bring in any extra tax from richer members of society. Perhaps if it is cut back down to 40%, the rich will pay more in tax.
The Chancellor made a number of excellent announcements on growth. Time limits me from mentioning them all, but I want to highlight a few, particularly the moratorium for small businesses with fewer than 10 employees. I hope that we can consider ways to deal with regulations from the EU more constructively. I note that the EU agency workers directive, if and when it comes into force, will cost businesses in Britain almost £1.5 billion a year. Although the Government have a one-in, one-out policy, if that is successful it will only keep regulation at current levels. I hope that it will become a one-in, two-out policy. I welcome the enterprise zones and the decision to speed up planning decisions and ensure that they are made within one year. I also welcome the decision to increase the enterprise investment scheme allowance from 20% to 30% as well as the increase in entrepreneurs’ relief and the cut in corporation tax.
The policies that will truly promote growth are those that the Government have started to implement in some of their key plans in other Departments. In education, we will get young people to focus once again on core subjects and, in the context of reskilling our young people, I welcome the announcement that we will increase the number of apprenticeships and build on the good work done by the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning by adding another 50,000 apprenticeship places by the end of the Parliament. So, 250,000 new apprenticeships will have been created by this Government by the end of the Parliament. I welcome the decision in the context of welfare to introduce the universal credit, which will ensure that it will always pay anyone on out-of-work benefits to be in work rather than out of work.
In conclusion, the Budget deals with our fiscal overstretch and promotes growth in tandem with other Government policies. I commend it to the House.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I share other Members’ pleasure in talking in a debate that has had so much heat and also the light of the maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).
I want to speak about a question that has been puzzling me for some time. How can the Government be so keen to show that they are tough on the national debt yet so blind to the growing crisis of personal debt that their policies are stoking? Families across Britain today will have listened to the Chancellor and wondered if he really understands the financial pressures they face—if he really has, as he said, done all he can to help them—because of the perfect storm of challenges hitting millions of homes across the country. Thanks to the VAT rise that he introduced, average families will pay an extra £300 to £450 a year in VAT and pensioners will pay an extra £275. Also, the benefits that help many families, such as tax credits and child benefit, are no longer there for them. That is a key concern for many of my constituents who have large families and who just tip into the higher tax bracket because of the London weighting on their wages.
Thanks to the Chancellor’s cuts, our economic recovery is stalling, which is why 8% of our working-age population is now unemployed. That is the highest level since 1994 and is set to rise further. Those people are in a job market in which 10 people are chasing every job and the situation is worse in London, with nearly 13 people chasing every job in my constituency. As a result of the cuts in the public sector, 130,000 people lost their job last year and another 170,000 families have members who are on redundancy notices. Buried in today’s papers are predictions that another 130,000 people will be made unemployed next year. Even those who are managing to stay in work are getting less because of the public sector pay freeze. The consumer prices index and the retail prices index are rising, reflecting the growing cost of living as clothes, food, energy and travel all cost more.
We are already seeing the impact of those problems. According to the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, London has the highest demand in the country for debt advice. Nationally, half of its clients gave unemployment or reduced income as the reason for their debt problems. In 2008-09 there were twice as many crisis loan applications as in 2006-07 and half of those applicants made two or more applications. Barnardo’s has reported a rise of 20% in the number of applications for its emergency loans for families and the UK now has one of the highest levels of personal debt of any country in the world.
There are 60 million credit cards in circulation in our country, for 14% of which customers can afford to make only the minimum payment. We should be extremely alarmed by what some people are using their credit cards to pay for. Shelter has highlighted the fact that one in 12 households in London is using credit cards to pay for mortgage or rent. Across Britain, the figure is one in 20 families. In the face of the changes the Government are making to our economy, families across Britain are struggling to make ends meet. That is vital to our economic recovery because, as we all know, credit is key to that recovery. Recently released figures show how consumer confidence is falling. People are not buying and spending in the way that our economy needs them to if it is to recover, but we should care about that and about personal debt not only because of the figures and the economic conditions but because millions of families now live with the fear of debt.
Half of all British households are worried about their debts and how they are going to pay them. Some 44% of households find that there is too much month at the end of their money and try as they might they cannot make what they earn cover what they need to spend. The problem is only going to get worse. In a recent survey, 43% of people said that they expected their personal financial situation to deteriorate over the next six months. This is not about buying new TVs or fancy holidays—it is about families struggling to feed their kids, pay their bus fares or keep their car going so they can get to work. It is about people having to cut corners or shift money from one credit card to another, chasing deals. It is about people worrying about paying their mortgage, affording school uniforms, arguing about debt and suffering sleepless nights. It is about people wasting time applying for jobs when so many jobs no longer exist.
I judge today’s Budget by what it will do to address those problems and to help families across Britain to make ends meet, not least because 20% of those who say they are struggling blame the recent tax rises for that. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said today, the Budget is giving with one hand and taking away lots with the other. The crippling impact of the rise in VAT will more than cancel out any change in the income tax threshold. Rather than offering corporation tax cuts to big business, we need to do more to get jobs and growth back into our economy. We need to put the needs of those families first but instead the Government are privatising personal debt.
At a time when people need help accessing credit to keep a roof over their head, the Government are taking away their options for help, with potentially disastrous consequences. They are taking away the social fund and capping the number of crisis loans for living expenses to just three a year, at a time when even more families are struggling.
I welcome the support that the Government have given for credit unions, but it will take a generation for them to become regarded as a serious, mainstream way for families across the country to access credit. As we all know from our surgeries and our conversations on the street, in these difficult economic circumstances, our banks are refusing to lend to businesses and individuals. The truth is that, with no real help in the Budget, there is very little option for many in our communities apart from the high-cost credit market, one of the few areas of our economy that is growing under this Government. Legal loan sharks are profiting from the perfect storm of rising living costs and falling wage packets for families across the country. Those people need our help now, not in the future.
Already, a quarter of payday loan customers cannot borrow from anyone else. They are sitting targets for such companies, whose business models rely on locking people into borrowing at an extortionate yet legal rate, so that what seems like a short-term solution to financial problems quickly becomes a long-term debt. We know that there has been a fourfold increase in payday lending since the recession began, and that due to a lack of regulation in the market in the UK, The Money Shop, Wonga, Provident, BrightHouse and other companies are expanding across the country at an alarming rate. Indeed, they have already pointed to the Government’s policies as increasing their customer base.
The problem will only get worse, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that households’ real incomes will be lower than they would have been without the recession. The Governor of the Bank of England predicts that real incomes will stagnate because of the weak condition of the labour market. That means that there are likely to be more and more families in the year ahead finding that they cannot keep their heads above water financially, but the Government have yet to lift a finger to help them. Even if the Government will not do anything that the Office for Budget Responsibility says will increase growth in the economy—we know that the plans put forward today have already been factored into the OBR’s growth predictions—they could at least take action on the cost of credit.
Back in February, I warned of the problem, as Members across the House called for a cap on the cost of credit. The Government sought to do what they could to delay taking action. Today, I am giving notice that I will be seeking support for a similar measure in response to the Budget. We can learn the lessons of windfall taxes that targeted the behaviours of particular companies. I want the Budget to review whether the set of companies that I am talking about ought to have their tax systems changed to discourage them from behaving as they do. If the Government will not regulate them, perhaps it is time to use the tax system to deal with legal loan sharks, just as we do with cigarettes and their toxic impact on our communities.
I hope to secure support from across the House for making such a measure part of the Budget, and to challenge the Government not to continue to sit on their hands when there are growing levels of personal debt crippling families in our communities. Introducing such a measure in the Budget could, for some families, be the difference between getting into hundreds of pounds of debt and thousands of pounds of debt. That could be a massively welcome relief for the families who are looking at today’s Budget and finding little to help them to make ends meet, and who are therefore having to turn to such companies.
We know that debt in itself can become a barrier to finding employment, as the emotional consequences and financial penalties become too much to bear. If we do not act to protect the poorest communities from unaffordable credit measures, we will all pay through higher welfare bills, lower spending and a lack of growth in the economy. I hope that the Chancellor and his Treasury team are listening to the needs of those families, and I hope that the Government will finally act to end legal loan sharking, so that we can at least get some good news out of today. I do not believe that they have done all that they can to help families who are struggling with the cost of living. If they will not listen to me, perhaps they will listen to a famous lady who I know has been an inspiration to many Government Members. She once argued that if a person could understand the problems of running a home, they were closer to understanding the problems of running a country. The Budget shows that the Government understand neither, and the British people will suffer all the more for it.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when so many more people in society will face huge debts, it is wrong for Derby city council to cut the welfare rights and debt advice provision for local people in my city?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are families struggling to understand what options are open to them. It is vital to support debt advocacy services. That is why I proposed that in my Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill and why it is all the more pity that the Government sought to delay action on that measure—
Business without Debate
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
petitions
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The petition states:
The Petition of Staff and Pupils of Hackleton Church of England Primary School,
Declares that just over eight million children die every year before their fifth birthday, mostly from preventable causes like diarrhoea and pneumonia; that ensuring that proven, cost-effective, preventative measures such as immunisation and breastfeeding are available at family and community level can save millions of these lives; that, where child health is prioritised, in countries such as Malawi, there are real and long-lasting results, showing that change is possible; and notes that the petitioners believe that global leaders must prioritise child health and end these unnecessary deaths.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for International Development to widen the Government’s approach on maternal and newborn health in the developing world to include child health.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000906]
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I bring to the Floor of the House of Commons today a petition in the names of Donna Benbow and Helen Jervis, both young mothers, both constituents and both concerned about the movement of maternity and other services from the Royal Shrewsbury hospital to the Princess Royal hospital at Telford.
By way of background, I should explain that the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust which serves Shropshire and mid-Wales proposes a reconfiguration of the service that it currently provides. The petition is supported by 3,745 names. The case is also supported by more than 800 people who attended public meetings. Another constituent, Sally Jones, has contributed thousands of names to a petition that is to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Montgomeryshire,
Declares that the petitioners oppose plans to move the Special Care Baby Unit, the Children’s Ward and some maternity services from Shrewsbury to Telford.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent these services being moved from Shrewsbury to Telford.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000907]
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Like the petition of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), my petition revolves around the concerns of local constituents about the move of maternity and paediatric services from the Royal Shrewsbury hospital to Telford. In the six years that I have been the Member of Parliament, I have never received such a large number of signatures—more than 29,000—which reflects the huge objection to the proposals, in conjunction with the opposition of paediatric consultants. For the board to try to move maternity and paediatric services away from Shrewsbury to Telford would be highly flawed and would fly in the face of all Government guidelines.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent these services being moved from Shrewsbury to Telford.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Shrewsbury and Atcham,
Declares that the petitioners oppose plans to move the Special Care Baby Unit, the Children’s Ward and some maternity services from Shrewsbury to Telford.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent these services being moved from Shrewsbury to Telford.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000908]
Cheshunt Urgent Care Centre
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak on the Adjournment this evening—we have had the Budget today, so the eyes of the nation are upon this place.
Two years ago, I was involved in a fantastic community campaign to bring an urgent care centre to Cheshunt. I was joined by more than 3,000 constituents in a letter-writing campaign to the primary care trust. We had a number of public meetings, with the car parks overflowing and many hundreds of constituents making their views known. The campaign culminated when I, along with the chief executive and the leader of the council, visited the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), at the Department of Health. It was a true community campaign. If the big society means anything, that is its basis: people coming together from across a community and joining in one voice to bring a much-needed facility to the constituency.
Since the centre arrived in October 2009, it has been fabulously well received. It is estimated that 400 people a week would use it at most, but in some weeks we have had 700 people voting with their feet by coming to that GP-led urgent care centre. It really is at the heart of the community. The reason so many people choose to use the facility is that it is open 12 hours a day, seven days a week, from 8 in the morning to 8 at night. Unlike many GP surgeries, it does not close for lunch and is open on Saturdays and Sundays, when people can use a medical facility because they are not at work in London.
Despite that enormous success, I was horrified to learn a few months ago that the PCT was not happy with the centre’s performance. I do not need to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that being a Member of Parliament over the past three years has been fairly challenging, but one of the bright spots of my career has been walking around my constituency and being stopped by people saying, “Charles, we are so pleased we have the urgent care centre. It was so much needed in this part of the borough. Thank you so much for the campaign you led.” It has been enormously gratifying and satisfying to get that level of feedback.
The PCT came to the House to meet Hertfordshire Members and I had my turn to chat with them about the issues relevant to Broxbourne. After 10 minutes of pleasantries I asked, almost off the cuff, “Of course, you’re not thinking of closing the urgent care centre, are you?” The reply was, “I’m afraid, Charles, that that is one of the options on the table.” I am normally a mild-mannered Member, but I am afraid that on that occasion I blew up. I think that I swore. Indeed, I know that I swore. I am ashamed of my behaviour, but it demonstrates how passionately I feel about the centre.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his passion and commitment to the urgent care centre and for the joint campaign run in Cheshunt and Enfield for the retention of a fully functioning accident and emergency department at Chase Farm hospital. Does what has happened to the urgent care centre not highlight the importance of the Secretary of State’s decision to encourage us all to think again about options other than the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey strategy, which would lead to the downgrading of not only Chase Farm hospital in Enfield, but, as predicated, an urgent care centre there?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is at the forefront, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), of the campaign to save Chase Farm hospital’s A and E, and I am always proud to join him outside those gates, making the argument for a fully functioning A and E service there.
The PCT has told me that it believes that the GP-led urgent care centre is treating inappropriate cases—whatever those are—and that people going there should be going to their GPs. It asks why it should have to pay for that treatment twice. Of course, they should not pay for it twice, but I always believed that the money should follow the patient, not the GP who does not deliver the service. My constituents use the urgent care centre so fully, because many—not all, but many—GP practices in my constituency do not deliver on their promise, or live up to their end of the deal, to provide a full GP service to them. So my constituents vote with their feet.
GP surgeries close for lunch, early in the evening and at weekends. If people want an appointment, they have to call up on the morning that they want it, only to be told, “We haven’t got any today, but if you want to come and see us tomorrow try calling us tomorrow.” That is not acceptable, and my constituents are not going to sit at home and wait to be treated like that day after day; they are going to walk to the urgent care centre and get treated there. What really upsets me is that the beacon of success in our constituency—the one that sees up to 700 people a week—now faces closure, while the GPs are not facing the necessary censure for some of their practices in delivering services to my constituents.
I discovered in a PCT board paper that many GP practices in my constituency are in the NHS version of special measures, meaning that they are in the bottom 10% of GP practices in the country. That leads me to ask again, “Why does the urgent care centre, which delivers a high level of service, face closure?” while GPs, as I said earlier, are not delivering the service that they are paid to deliver.
The PCT says that there was a unanimous decision on behalf of a steering committee to change the use of the urgent care centre—at best to make it a minor injuries unit, or perhaps even to close it. It says that the decision came about as a result of a meeting with various stakeholders and some research—independent research, I was told—by an organisation called Opinion Research Services. Of course, it was not independent research, because it was commissioned by the PCT: it paid the bills of Opinion Research Service. I do not know what went on at that meeting, but I am fairly sure of what did not, which is that those there did not get a full picture of how successfully the urgent care centre meets the needs of local constituents.
What I did learn is that the GP services in the area leave a lot to be desired. On page 8, the board report states:
“A quarterly patient access survey carried out nationally has highlighted perceived problems with access and satisfaction with primary care in the area served by Cheshunt UCC.”
On page 8, it goes on to state:
“In addition, perceived poor access to primary care in and around the area served by Cheshunt must be addressed.”
Notice the emphasis on “perceived”. It is not perceived poor access, however; it is real poor access. If it was perceived, hundreds of my constituents would not go to the urgent care centre.
On pages 11 and 12, the report states:
“The need to improve access to primary care in the Cheshunt area has been recognised and steps are being taken in conjunction with the Clinical Executive Committee (CEC) to support and performance manage those practices”—
not a practice, but those practices—
“in the bottom 10% nationally in terms of patient’s perceived access.”
Quite frankly, that is not good enough.
I became even more concerned about the situation when I went on to read that it is local GP commissioners who are putting pressure on the PCT to close our successful GP-led urgent care centre.
On page 9, the report states:
“Local GP commissioners do not support the configuration and have confirmed that they would not wish to commission UCCs as currently configured at...Cheshunt in the future."
On page 12, it states:
“The view of the GP Practice-Based Commissioning leads in the localities is that these needs are best addressed directly with the practices rather than by way of additional services.”
But why are the practices not addressing those needs now?
The PCT has said, with great fanfare, that it is providing additional services and support to GPs to help them to improve. Of course, that is very welcome. However, given that it is providing new telephone systems, automated self-check-in screens, waiting room plasma screens, web-based online appointments systems and electronic document management systems, my constituents and I want to know what on earth has been going on in these practices for the past 10 years. One thing that GPs have not been short of is money, so how have they not placed these absolutely critical tools for managing patient load in their surgeries, with the PCT now having to fund them?
If services in my constituency are to improve, we need competition. We need the urgent care centre to set new standards of treatment. If the urgent care centre, which is driving ever-higher levels of patient care, is shut, what incentive will there be for GPs to improve their service levels? It is incumbent on my local GPs, who are falling behind, either to deliver or surpass that level of care, or perhaps to make way and allow practices to come into the borough that are willing to take up the challenge of opening 12 hours a day and providing weekend services. Until we reach that stage, the PCT has absolutely no excuse for closing down this urgent care centre.
Earlier today, the PCT had a meeting where it decided to downgrade the urgent care centre to a minor injuries unit; it thinks it will get away with that. However, that is not good enough and it will not satisfy my constituents, because closing down the urgent care centre and removing the GPs from it removes the incentive for practices in and around the centre that are not delivering to their patients to improve their services.
As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am really very annoyed about this. I thought that I would come here and manage to smile my way through it and be magnanimous, but I simply cannot. For my whole life, I have believed that good practice and success should be rewarded. I thought that that was just the way things were—that an organisation that saw an urgent care centre that was delivering not 400 patient outcomes a week, as envisaged, but 600 or 700, would feel that it was a success story that deserved to be built on. By accident or design, our PCT has stumbled on a formula that works and meets the needs of the local community, but instead of building on that, it is pulling the rug from underneath it, and I believe that it is being pressured by some GP practices in my constituency and future GP commissioners to do so.
I will conclude, after my 15 minutes, by saying that there is only one set of vested interests that I represent in this place. It is not the PCT’s interests or the GPs’ interests—it is the interests of my constituents, more than 520 of whom turned up, at about nine days’ notice, at a public meeting that I held last Thursday to say to the PCT: “No, we want to keep our urgent care centre.” The PCT has got it wrong, it needs to listen, and we need that urgent care centre in Cheshunt.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on securing what is a very important debate for him and his constituents. I commend him for the commitment that he has shown, as illustrated during his high-powered speech, in campaigning on health issues for his constituents to ensure that they get first-class, quality care. I also take this opportunity to recognise the hard work and dedication shown by NHS staff in his constituency. Their dedication, expertise and drive do so much to improve the health and well-being of his and other hon. Members’ constituents on a daily basis. This Government will support and empower them to provide his constituents with health outcomes that are consistently among the very best in the world.
As part of the Government’s commitment to the NHS, we are consistently increasing the amount of money we provide to local organisations. Total revenue investment in the NHS in 2011-12 will grow to more than £102 billion. The allocations announced on 15 December will provide primary care trusts with £89 billion to spend on the local front-line services that matter most. That is an overall increase of £2.6 billion, or 3%. Of that, Hertfordshire PCT will receive £1.7 billion—a cash increase of £47.7 million, or 2.9%.
Before turning to the specific issue of the Cheshunt urgent care centre, I will set out the context of our plans to modernise the NHS and bring considerable improvements to the health care experienced by my hon. Friend’s constituents. We believe that local NHS services should be centred around the patient, led by local clinicians and free from political interference, either from this House or from the various levels of NHS bureaucracy. To this purpose, we have set out our proposals to liberate the NHS from central control. We will set front-line professionals free to innovate and to make decisions based on their clinical judgment and the needs of their patients, with the sole aim of improving the quality of care given and the outcomes achieved.
Responsibility for budgets and commissioning care will transfer from managers within the PCTs to clinicians in general practice-led consortia. Patients will receive health care that is tailored to their community and their personal circumstances. Our plans will radically simplify the NHS. Two layers of management—strategic health authorities and PCTs—will no longer be necessary. We anticipate a one-third reduction in administration costs, saving the NHS £5 billion by the next election and £1.7 billion in every year after that. Every single penny of those billions of pounds will be reinvested in front-line services.
There are now 177 pathfinder consortia across England, covering 35 million people—more than two thirds of the population. Those consortia are taking a lead in rejuvenating local services, cutting out waste and putting the needs of patients before the needs of the system. There are now three pathfinder consortia in Hertfordshire. The East and North Hertfordshire GP commissioning consortium covers part of my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Clinical leadership will go hand in hand with greater local democratic accountability. Under “any willing provider”, an increasing number of independent sector and social enterprise organisations will deliver NHS services. Unlike now, local authorities will have the power to scrutinise all providers of NHS-funded services. Local authorities will be able to require the provider to present information and to appear at scrutiny meetings to hold them to account.
Already, 143 local authorities—almost 90% of those in England—have signed up to be health and wellbeing board early implementers, including Hertfordshire county council. The make-up of health and wellbeing boards will be left to their own discretion, but will include representatives of GP consortia, directors of public health, adult and children’s services, representatives of HealthWatch, representatives of the NHS commissioning board and locally elected councillors. As well as preparing a joint strategic needs assessment, they will have to draw up a strategy to deliver the requirements set out in that assessment. In short, health and wellbeing boards will promote integrated working across the NHS, public health and social care, and will hold NHS services to account. That will lead to better, more accountable services for local people.
The Government are clear that in a patient-led NHS, any changes to services must begin and end with what patients and local communities want and need. Until the new system is in place, we expect PCTs to follow best practice in ensuring that local communities are fully engaged in such decisions. When it comes to urgent care, it is vital that local services are coherent and easily accessible around the clock. However, we have again been clear that decisions on the form that they should take are best made locally, in the light of local needs.
In the Broxbourne area, there are 12 GP surgeries, four of which are in Cheshunt. The area also has an out-of-hours GP service provided by Herts Urgent Care, based at the Cheshunt community hospital. The community hospital also provides out-patient clinics and a range of community services. There are 22 pharmacies in the borough, nine of which are in Cheshunt and one of which opens for extended hours.
On the specific matters that my hon. Friend raised regarding the Cheshunt urgent care centre, I understand that in 2007, the former two Hertfordshire PCTs, in partnership with the two Hertfordshire acute trusts, held public consultations on a health strategy, “Delivering quality healthcare for Hertfordshire”. The strategy was intended to improve access to urgent care services in Hertfordshire, so that people with urgent but not life-threatening conditions could be redirected from hospital accident and emergency departments to receive more appropriate treatment more quickly and closer to home.
In response to the public consultation, the PCTs agreed to piloting urgent care centres at both Cheshunt and Hertford, on the basis that they would be evaluated before longer-term decisions were made about their future. It is crucial to remember that they were pilot schemes, and it was always understood that after a period of time had passed, so that experience could be gained, they would be evaluated before those longer-term decisions were taken.
The urgent care centres were established as part of a 12-month pilot project between January and December 2010, with the specific objective of relieving pressure on local accident and emergency services. The primary purpose and objective was to reduce the number of patients seen at A and E by 20,000 a year, by providing local people with direct access to urgent care centres. The purpose of those centres is to see and treat people with urgent, but not life-threatening, illnesses such as sprains, strains, broken bones, and minor burns and scalds in a local community setting, allowing A and E departments to concentrate on life-threatening emergencies.
Hertfordshire PCT commissioned an independent research organisation, Opinion Research Services, to evaluate the success of the pilot centres at Cheshunt and Hertford, the latter in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). I understand that during the evaluation process, the views of the general public, NHS staff and local GPs were taken into account. Evidence was then submitted to an evaluation panel consisting of local GPs, local councillors, staff from local authorities and representatives of the PCT.
When the evaluation panel met on 17 January this year, it came to the unanimous view that urgent care centres were not achieving their aim of diverting significant numbers of patients from A and E. I remind the House that that, of course, was the primary purpose of the pilot scheme when it was started at the beginning of January 2010. Instead, considerable numbers of those using the urgent care service were seeking advice and treatment usually provided by GPs, for conditions such as raised temperatures, sore throats and headaches. It was never the intention that the urgent care centres would have a primary care focus. They were established to relieve pressure on local A and E services and to treat people with urgent but not life-threatening illnesses.
The evaluation panel recommended that the pilot centres should not continue in their current format. Instead, it recommended that the PCT should consider recommissioning activity through one or two minor injuries units. It also recommended that the PCT consider how it could improve access to high-quality primary care, to compensate for the loss of the urgent care centre.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is aware, Hertfordshire PCT published its board papers on the issue on 18 March. I understand that the PCT met earlier today to consider the recommendations and has decided to uphold them and not recommission the urgent care centres in their current form. Instead, it will consider recommissioning a minor injuries unit at Cheshunt.
I accept, as my hon. Friend made clear, that the Cheshunt urgent care centre is well regarded by local people. However, the provision of services is a matter for the local NHS. As he understands, it is not for Ministers to interfere and micromanage the day-to-day business of the NHS.
My hon. Friend mentioned access to general practitioners in the Cheshunt area. To reiterate what he said, the evaluation panel recommends that the PCT considers how it can improve access to high-quality primary care to compensate for the loss of the Cheshunt urgent care centre. The PCT has upheld that recommendation. I understand that the PCT has a programme of measures to improve access to general practice, to which he referred. I am sure he will agree that it is important to pursue and achieve that.
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is sad that only in the last few months have this Government been able to come to grips with some of the previous Government’s failings in making the local health service more accountable to the needs, wishes and requirements of local people. He and I will be totally in agreement on that. That is why I believe that the core of our health service modernisation programme— putting patients at the heart of the delivery of care—is so important. I am sure that he and I agree that that is an appealing principle from which to work.
As my hon. Friend said, the PCT has established a funding initiative for GP practices to support the Improving Access programme, which includes funding for new telephone systems, improved appointments and check-in systems, and medical equipment. The programme continues to be a key area of work for PCT staff, who will work closely with GPs to ensure that it is implemented, and that local people see improvements.
I have been advised—I hope this reassures my hon. Friend—that the latest GP patient survey results show that four GP surgeries in his constituency scored 91% or above in terms of satisfaction with care. Two of those practices—the Cromwell medical centre, which achieved a 92% rating, and the Warden Lodge medical practice, which achieved 93%—are in the Cheshunt area.
I am assured that the PCT will hold discussions with East and North Hertfordshire GP consortium and involve it fully as it conducts that further investigation. I am also assured that the PCT will have conversations with the public and other stakeholders, including my hon. Friend if he wishes, to gain further understanding of the needs of the local population, and to explain to potential users of the services what a minor injuries unit can provide. In addition, I am advised that the PCT will strengthen its performance management of GP practices to address the problems that some local people have experienced. I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, but the board has decided that the PCT needs to explore further the possibilities of setting up a minor injuries unit. I understand that the PCT will test the feasibility of the new unit with providers.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petition
Proposed Sale of Zurbaran Paintings
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Public Sector Funding
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I am pleased to have secured a debate on the important topic of the effects on the voluntary sector of reductions in public sector funding. I am also pleased to serve under you as Chair, Mr Amess.
In the current economic context, a thriving community and voluntary sector is vital. Locally, people with debt problems need their citizens advice bureau, carers need their carers centre and people need support from organisations that work with children with special needs or with people who have long-term conditions. The previous Labour Government have a proud record of support for a stronger voluntary sector. We doubled the funding to the sector from £5.5 billion to £12 billion in 2009, and created the first ever Minister for the third sector, with an office putting the third sector at the heart of Government. In addition, we gave the third sector a strong voice in Government through the Third Sector Partnership Board.
We also supported social enterprise. At the end of 2010, there were approximately 62,000 social enterprises in the UK, contributing at least £24 billion to the economy and employing 800,000 people. Labour did much to boost and encourage volunteering in our communities when we were in government. Some 850,000 charity trustees serve on the governing body of a charity, and 780,000 paid staff work in the sector to provide services and to support and encourage volunteering. There are also 2.7 million volunteers, on whom many small charities rely. For example, my local citizens advice bureau in Walkden has 20 volunteers a day working with staff who are trained debt advisers or are trained to offer legal advice.
Some 40% of adults report that they have volunteered formally at least once in the past 12 months, with 25% volunteering formally at least once a month. However, despite the coalition Government’s rhetoric about the big society, cuts in funding from central and local government are damaging the sector. It has been estimated that the voluntary sector is facing cuts of £1.1 billion just this year, rising to more than £3 billion next year. There are also real fears for the capacity of the voluntary sector. At a time when the Government are talking about localism and creating opportunities for charities and community organisations, the sector will almost certainly do less this year than in previous years.
The collaborative website, www.voluntarysectorcuts. org.uk, is mapping those cuts. One of them is a grant cut of £500,000 from the Office for Civil Society to the volunteering support organisation, TimeBank. I want to discuss that as an example of what initiatives are affected when such a cut is made. TimeBank was set up in February 2000 and was funded by the Home Office and the BBC as a support agency to inspire a new generation of volunteers. Its vision is to make volunteering part of the fabric of everyday life. In the past 10 years, TimeBank has helped and encouraged 30,000 people into volunteering. For example—this is a good example to consider at the moment—in 2004, TimeBank asked people to back London’s bid for the Olympics and 14,000 potential volunteers responded. That has now risen to 100,000 people who want to volunteer for the Olympics. In the same year, it recruited 1,900 people aged 20 to 35 for volunteering opportunities with hospices. In 2008, 1,400 parent volunteers were recruited to mentor other parents for Home-Start. TimeBank offers tailored support to anyone interested in volunteering or running a dedicated help desk and website. The organisation has established good practice and provides space for local, regional and national sharing of experience. It runs a dedicated help desk and website to signpost people towards volunteering opportunities and to increase accessibility and engagement.
TimeBank recently launched something called the volurater, which is a forum like TripAdvisor that allows people to review their volunteering experience. TimeBank says that the cancellation of its funding from the Office for Civil Society means that its support functions will be severely undermined. The staff and resources for that work have been paid for from the core funding that it receives from Government. All its other funding streams are ring-fenced for programme or project delivery, so the loss of £500,000 of grant funding puts a significant proportion of TimeBank’s work under threat. As I said, the volurater is a review tool for volunteers to rate their volunteering experiences. It aims to help to drive up standards in volunteering across the board and to give volunteers a voice. No other organisation has such a tool for volunteers, and it is now under threat.
Junction49 is also under threat. It is a web platform aimed at young people that acts as a type of Facebook for volunteers. It was set up in 2007, and it allows young people to share and develop ideas, and to make a difference in their communities by setting up volunteering projects. Junction49 has supported 1,145 young people, and helped them to volunteer through advice, support and connecting them with other like-minded people. TimeBank’s website and newsletter are also at risk. The website receives 16,000 new visitors a month, and is designed specifically to help people to volunteer. The website includes ideas and inspiration, such as a blog, a postcode search for local opportunities and a “how to get started” section. There is also a help desk that is contactable by phone or e-mail, with a dedicated staffing resource to answer questions about volunteering and help people along the way. TimeBank has a monthly electronic newsletter that is sent out to 300,000 volunteers whom it calls time givers, and it includes ideas and tips about volunteering. Regular social media activity—the type of things I have been describing—drives people to the website and raises awareness of volunteering issues and best practice. It also helps with recruiting volunteers and signposting volunteering opportunities.
TimeBank also runs programmes to match people with volunteer mentors. I shall mention two of those that are under threat as a result of the funding cuts. TimeBank has worked in partnership with Carers UK to develop a mentoring programme for new carers, who often feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Those two organisations are providing new carers with access to information and advice from a mentor who has been a carer themselves. A groundbreaking TimeBank project called Shoulder to Shoulder supports ex-servicemen and women returning to civilian life who have mental health problems. More than 20,000 people leave the service to return to civilian life each year, and around a quarter of those have a mental health problem. One in five of those have a mental health problem resulting from traumas and injuries that they experienced during their service.
Another valuable area of work for TimeBank is support for businesses involved in employee volunteering. Participating organisations include Sky, Virgin, Vodafone, Sony, T-Mobile and even the Cabinet Office. Years ago, I worked on such a project with the organisation, Business in the Community. I arranged community development assignments for staff from organisations and corporate companies, such as IBM and Marks & Spencer. Support for that type of volunteering from business is needed if such things are to happen. I know how valuable that is, both for the employee who volunteers and for the community organisation for which they volunteer. For instance, in 2008, TimeBank organised T-Mobile employees to help young people who are not in education, employment or training set up their own projects and design a mobile application to tackle a social issue. That work could also be under threat.
In December 2010, the Minister posted a message on Twitter congratulating TimeBank on its 10th anniversary. Cutting one sixth of its funding three months later is hardly the right way to support an organisation with a 10-year track record of innovative support for volunteering. TimeBank’s chief executive has said:
“This decision will hugely undermine the Government’s vision for a Big Society…For the past decade we have made an important contribution to mobilising an army of 300,000 volunteers and to improving the quality of volunteering across the board. Without this vital core funding we will not be able to continue to deliver the level of service that we have based our reputation on and will have to considerably reduce our activities and staff as a result.”
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I have an example in my own constituency. Kids in Communication is a youth media group that operates KicFM, and it has recruited 5,000 volunteers in the past decade. I urge the Minister to look at that group with some urgency. It will run out of funding at the end of next week. He has previously mentioned that 50% match funding might be available. If we are going to create a big society and sustain it, we need such organisations to recruit volunteers. By rolling back the funding, the Government are decreasing the number of volunteers in society, which goes against the whole spirit of the big society.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I personally believe that some of the decisions to cut grant funding to organisations that support volunteering, such as TimeBank and the one that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, are difficult to understand, because Ministers have talked about encouraging social action and the need to support the community and voluntary sector. In fact, we recently had a debate on the big society in the House. The Minister said:
“I really believe that we have barely scratched the surface of what can be achieved in this country if we strike a more effective and balanced partnership between Government, business and civil society”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 131.]
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is the real problem that the Government do not appear to understand the role of the voluntary sector? It is often professional, well run, well organised and extremely hard-working. It brings in lots of money from charities and other places, but it absolutely relies on basic core funding in order to succeed. The Government seem to confuse it with charitable good works in small towns, and that model simply does not apply to complex, urban areas such as the one that I represent.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. That is right, if there is an urge, as the Minister has said, to discuss partnerships between Government, business and civil society. I talked earlier about employee volunteering from business in the voluntary sector. That has to be arranged, however, because there is a big, wide cultural gap between the private sector and the voluntary sector. We cannot just leave a new business volunteer to flounder in an organisation. I used to arrange business volunteering as part of a job that I did in the past. I know that someone needs to be the link in-between, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
The Minister described one strand of action for the Government as
“encouraging more social action in our communities”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 132.]
How on earth is that going to happen if we cut away the infrastructure of organisations such as TimeBank?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She has very clearly outlined the case for volunteers in our society. Every one of us in the Chamber this morning will be aware of the work of volunteers. It seems as if Ministers are diverting money to sports, heritage and arts, and away from voluntary and charity groups and those who do good work in the community. Does she share my concern that there are more worthy cases in relation to the voluntary and charity work that is done in the community?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. I said in my opening paragraph that in the current economic context issues such as debt advice and other ways in which people volunteer in communities and societies are crucial. Volunteering in sports organisations is important, and sport and culture are important too, but in the current context the social function of volunteering roles are vital, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I shall return to the question of how the Government will encourage more social action if they close off financial support to those small—and they are small—but vital charities that support and encourage people to volunteer. I just want to touch briefly on support for carers, which is one strand of the work that TimeBank is seeking to do, and which is under threat. Support for carers is vital and will become even more so, given the cuts and uncertainty that are now affecting us as a result of proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill. Schemes such as the one developed by TimeBank are essential, and working with Carers UK to put new carers in contact with experienced carers could be a lifeline. Such a scheme helps the new carer to care more effectively, which is important in our communities.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
With regard to TimeBank, is the hon. Lady aware that it is seeking to set up an initiative whereby MPs can bank their volunteering? Would she support that initiative, as I do?
Barbara Keeley
I would certainly support that, but I cannot imagine how the hon. Gentleman thinks that TimeBank will set up new projects if his Government are cutting away its infrastructure funding. It is astonishing that he should raise that today.
Barbara Keeley
No, let us leave it at that. The Minister and hon. Members have to understand that we cannot remove £500,000 of an organisation’s funding and then expect it to carry on with new initiatives. Clearly, it would not be able to do so.
I was discussing the vital scheme that TimeBank is setting up with carers. The groups with which TimeBank works are crucial in our society, but carers are in a special category. Carers who care for more than 50 hours a week are twice as likely to suffer from ill health, while those who care for a person suffering from dementia or stroke disease are even more at risk of ill health. If we do not support carers, therefore, we are causing additional health problems in our communities. In my local area, there are some 22,000 carers, one in four of whom care for more than 50 hours per week.
How are we to take initiatives if we cut the infrastructure funding for organisations? Last week, the Carers Identification and Support Bill, which I introduced, was not debated because we spent much of the time discussing a string of Bills introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am sure that hon. Members who are here on Fridays understand that that is a common occurrence these days. There are no new measures to support carers in the Health and Social Care Bill, so how will they be supported? Will the Minister tell us why his Government’s cuts to TimeBank have been made, as they will cause the potential loss of a new way to support carers—people who give their up so much of their lives caring for family and friends?
The debate on funding must focus on the important issue of support for the infrastructure of the voluntary sector. Organisations such as TimeBank are on the front line of finding and supporting volunteers for charities, such as hospices and the Olympics, and they help to support and mentor carers. Labour’s support helped maintain high levels of participation in volunteering. Cuts to the funding of volunteering charities will result in the organisational cutbacks that I have discussed, and which will lead to a decrease in volunteering, not an increase. I hope that the Minister will tell us today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) encouraged him to do, that he will think again, and that some way can be found to reverse cuts which could be damaging to the cause of volunteering.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I have some words of advice. Westminster Hall debates are important, and the proper procedure is for hon. Members to drop a note to the Chair beforehand if they wish to speak. Certainly, when I am chairing proceedings, those hon. Members will receive preference when I call speakers. If an hon. Member pops in, makes an intervention and clears off before the end of the debate, that is to be deprecated—hon. Members have to stay for the whole debate. Finally, I know which hon. Members wish to speak, but I do not know whether other hon. Members have come to the Chamber to make speeches or interventions. There are five Government Members and eight Opposition Members waiting to speak, and the winding-up speeches will begin at 10.40 am. As hon. Members have taken the trouble to be here, I would like to call everyone. However, they can do the maths as well me, so it is up to them to share the time out.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I think, Mr Amess, that coming in, making an intervention and disappearing is known as doing a Spink, is it not?
It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). She and I are involved as officers of the all-party group on carers. I think there is no one in this Chamber who does not support the work of volunteers and we would all like to see the maximum amount of volunteering. We all have to accept, however, that we start from a position of having to manage an enormous budget deficit. Each and every day, the Government have to spend £120 million, just on interest, to service the deficit. I did a calculation the other day. I added up all the money that the Government give to my constituency through the local district council, the money it gives in grants to Cherwell district council, Oxfordshire county council, the Oxfordshire primary care trust and Thames Valley police for the whole of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. The total equates to just 11 days’ interest on the budget deficit. We all have to put this in some sort of context.
I want to make some general comments about local government. I have come to the conclusion that the way it operates will have to change radically and fundamentally, and I shall give the House examples of that. We have had a system under which we all pay our taxes, the taxes go to the Treasury, the Treasury allocates money to local government, and local governments, from their largesse, allocate money to voluntary groups in their area, as they see fit. Voluntary groups have very much been rentiers, dependent on the largesse of local government and what it has chosen to give them. That needs to change considerably.
First, there needs to be a commitment by local government to allow much greater community scrutiny. May I give the House an example of why that is the case? On Saturday, I met with campaigners in Deddington in my constituency who want to retain their library. As we discussed the situation, it became apparent that we have in Oxfordshire a public library service, but also a schools library service, which is operated completely separately. That prompts the question, why do we need two services? What happens with back office costs? As we discussed the matter further and began talking about the mobile library, we realised that it was going to villages to which, at the same time, the GP surgery—in the village that has the library—sends transport to collect people to come into the surgery.
As the discussion continued, it struck me that, under that system, the risk is that the greatest cuts will be made at the front end—that is, at the service end—yet no one has had an opportunity to understand the full central costs of running the services. The local authority has not been subjected to complete scrutiny so that people may make proper value judgments about whether it is ensuring that any spending reductions it has to make are fairly distributed between it and the services that it might hitherto have supported.
There is a danger that local authorities will simply retrench to their statutory obligations and duties, and say, “If we don’t have a statutory duty to do this, we won’t do it.” However, as we all know, the reality is that, for a long time, part of the fabric of society has been local authorities funding all sorts of organisations and operations that are not necessarily part of their statutory obligations.
There needs to be a new obligation on local authorities to subject themselves to much greater community scrutiny, and that would happen in part if they had to put all their expenditure online and be much more transparent about how they spend their money. Transparency is one thing, but we also need to ensure that they subject themselves to much greater scrutiny so that people can ask questions about how money is spent.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman is talking about local authorities retrenching and cutting back on support for the voluntary sector, but I have just outlined an example of the Government doing that. Does the same duty fall on the Government when they start retrenching and substantially cutting grants to charities?
Tony Baldry
The hon. Lady is already able to scrutinise Government decisions—that is exactly what she is doing today in this Chamber. She will have the benefit of a response from my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am sure will answer her questions about TimeBank, which is an excellent charity and an excellent initiative, in his winding-up speech. Local government needs to take a new approach to scrutiny.
My second point is about engagement. My constituency happens to have been confronted with a threat to the local general hospital. Over time, that has constructively resulted in much greater engagement between local authorities, the primary care trust and various campaigning groups, which has been incredibly successful. As a consequence, we have managed to keep the local hospital as a general hospital.
It strikes me that that is a new, organic pattern of engagement between the local authority and, importantly, its officers, and members of the voluntary and community sectors. There are no rigid demarcations as to who is accountable or who is elected. It involves people coming together constructively to try to work out what is in the best interests of the community as a whole. We need the local government, its officers and elected members to be involved in much more of that sort of broader community engagement so that there can be an ongoing discussion with the community.
My last point is that there needs to be much greater commitment on the part of local government and central Government to put opportunities to tender out to social enterprises and voluntary organisations, and they need to be much clearer about how that should happen. The last example from my constituency is a new social enterprise in Banbury that was set up by people who had been working for many years with offenders at Bullingdon prison who were addicted to or had a dependency on drug or substance abuse. They have been doing excellent work involving ex-offenders in therapy. They have a good, reputable board of trustees, including some eminent doctors and others, and are doing a great deal of work with people who voluntarily self-refer. However, they could do a great deal more in the rehabilitation revolution by offering their services to people who may recently have come out of custody or may be in danger of going into custody—for example, there could be referrals from the courts.
The difficulty is that there is a disconnect in the rehabilitation revolution between how such groups get referrals, who buys the services and how they buy services. If government collectively wants social enterprises to develop, there needs to be a much clearer indication of where, within the machinery of central Government and local government, organisations can buy services. Otherwise, it will be extremely difficult for social enterprises to grow because they will have no idea how they might be able to maintain a sustainable income.
We are in incredibly challenging times because of the need to tackle the budget deficit, but we also have an opportunity to rethink much of what we do and how we approach central Government and local government. In the past, there has been a completely top-down, paternalistic, dirigiste system in which a citizens advice bureau at the bottom of the pile is lucky if it gets a grant each year from the district council. We should turn that on its head. There should be a bottom-up, community-driven process of priorities so that people in Deddington or Adderbury who are concerned about their library can drive the agenda, rather than it being imposed on them from the top. We should see this as an opportunity for real change.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I hope hon. Members will accept that the maths that I have done are correct. Four-minute speeches would get us all into the debate. Are you, Mr Amess, in a position to impose a four-minute limit?
Jeremy Corbyn
I look forward to your unofficial imposition of a four-minute limit.
I welcome this debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing it. The voluntary sector is very important in our society. It is important for community cohesion and for newly arrived communities, and, in inner-urban areas such as the one I represent, it is a crucial part of the social fabric of both local government and health services. It is highly professional, efficient and well organised, and stressful for those who work in it. I am president of Voluntary Action Islington, formerly Islington voluntary action council, and a trustee of several local organisations, including Hanley Crouch community centre, Elizabeth House and a new-ish group called Light Project International, which provides weekend and after-school activities for young people, so I am acutely aware of and involved in the valuable work done by the voluntary sector.
The voluntary sector has always been a combination of a small amount of general fundraising from events and collections, and much larger funding from local health authorities, local government, various charitable institutions and, occasionally, business donations. That is complicated, and we should have regard and respect for those people who manage community centres and local organisations, and spend an inordinate amount of their time stressing over funds, staff and conditions, and funding applications. They spend a fantastic amount of their time completing funding application forms. An industry has grown up, with professional fundraisers offering to complete application forms and to fundraise for fixed fees or a proportion of the funds raised.
We must think through the efficiency of having highly skilled community centre managers spending sometimes 70% of their time on fundraising activities, which obviously diminishes a centre’s day-to-day work. A clearer, more defined role for local government and local health authorities in supporting and funding over a much longer period would be much more efficient. The current system is not efficient.
I have been involved in voluntary sector organisations in my constituency for a long time, and in a previous incarnation I was chair of community development in Haringey council. We developed community centres, particularly for minority ethnic communities, disability groups and others, as a way to bring in people in partnership with local authorities and health authorities. I strongly support the voluntary sector, but am sanguine about its role.
When I hear the Prime Minister talking about the big society, there seems to be a complete disconnect between my experience in inner urban London and what the voluntary sector means there, and the vision that he seems to have of fairly well-off retired people donating money to run a library and so on in a community with highly skilled people with time and money on their hands. That is not the reality of life in my community. If the council closed a library, which fortunately it has not done, and offered it to the local community to run, it would not happen, not because people do not value the library—they absolutely do—but because they do not have the time, the money or the skills necessary to do it. If we want to maintain the social fabric of our society, we must be prepared to put public money into voluntary organisations with the add-on benefit of community usage and all that goes with that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, that core funding is essential.
Another point for the Minister, which I hope he will answer seriously, is the operation of the transition fund. As with every other community in the country, mine faces enormous cuts in local government expenditure and less grant money from the health authority, as well as less money from London Councils. There are great difficulties. The Government established the transition fund, but I have concerns about it. I received a good brief on it from Gerard Omasta-Milsom, director of Islington Peoples Rights, which is a very good voluntary advice agency. He says that to be eligible for the transition fund, applicants must be
“spending… 50 per cent of your total income delivering frontline… services”.
I wish that someone would define what a front-line service is. It is easy to say that we must support people on the front line and not those in the back office, but if a community centre does not have a bookkeeper, a cleaner, a caretaker or someone to repair computers and so on, it does not work. There cannot be a simplistic distinction between the front line and the back office. It is the totality of the service that is most important.
Another condition on transition fund applicants is that they
“have approved annual accounts that are no more than 12 months old which show that… your total income for that year was between £50,000 and £10 million and”
that
“at least 60 per cent of your total income came from taxpayer-funded sources.”
But £50,000 is quite a lot. We set up a community chest system in Islington, which operated until the Government cuts, and the council has now set up a new but smaller community chest. It gives small grants to new, seedcorn organisations such as new Somali organisations—we have a growing Somali community in Islington. The grant may be as little as £4,000 or £5,000, and in some cases even less. When such organisations are small and have only just come into existence, a small investment goes a long way.
The briefing goes on to say that free reserves could
“pay for your organisation’s total expenditure for no more than six months.”
I do not understand that requirement. Anyone who is running an organisation must have enough money to pay for ongoing costs and redundancy costs for at least three months. I hope that the Minister will tell me two things: first, whether the transition fund will be simplified and will continue beyond this financial year and, secondly, whether, as it has been so vastly oversubscribed throughout the country, he will speak to the Chancellor and obtain more money for it.
As every other part of the Budget seems to have been leaked, there will be no harm done if the Minister tells us exactly what part of the transition fund will be made available to the voluntary sector. It is vital to put money into such organisations and to keep them going. The health, well-being and strength of communities are so important. Removing the seedcorn funding and the basic running cost is damaging, and I hope that the Government will think again about that.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Amess. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for initiating this debate. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the four-minute suggested time limit. He did not quite stick to it, but his maths were welcome.
The issue is an urban one, but also a rural one. I represent a large tract of rural west Wales, which has a proud history of volunteering, and I will start with the Welsh perspective. There are 30,000 groups throughout Wales, and 650,000 volunteers. It was estimated that in 2005, 54% of adults in Wales were volunteering in one way or another. Many of those groups—some 10,000—received no public funding whatever and relied on donations, as they had incomes of up to perhaps £10,000 a year. They ran small projects, with the emphasis on developing volunteers’ skills.
A huge number of other schemes in Wales relied on core funding in one manifestation or another, whether from our Assembly Government or through local authorities. I shall cite some examples in my constituency, and their valuable work. Many operated under the guise of a scheme initiated by our National Assembly which is called the Communities First project. It is very relevant in deprived urban communities, and in scattered rural communities. I am not sure whether it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy in the forthcoming Assembly elections to retain that project, but they should do so, because it has been a laudable success in my part of Wales.
The village of Ystrad Meurig wanted a mobile phone mast, because it did not have any reception, and it was supported in that by the Communities First project. A scheme to develop a youth club in one of my deprived wards in Aberystwyth was not short of volunteers, but it needed strategic leadership to organise and support them. I suspect that the idea that under the big society, green shoots of initiative will spring up throughout the country is far from the reality. That may happen in many cases—the hon. Member for Islington North spoke about protecting libraries, and we heard about the enthusiasm in Deddington in Oxfordshire. However, many of our communities require a lead and some measured core funding.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South referred to citizens advice bureaux. I have two excellent bureaux in Aberystwyth and Cardigan, and my wife is a trustee of one of them. Again, there is an abundance of volunteers, but what really worries citizens advice bureaux is the cut in the central training budgets, which affects volunteers’ ability to deliver a critical service to my constituents. We have heard about carers. I launched a project with Crossroads Care, an organisation in mid-Wales working to support carers with training, enabling them to take advantage of new flexible working structures and, when given the opportunity, return to the labour market. More than anything, carers require the stability of core funding, and I hope that the Minister will address that issue.
The Liberal Democrats held a much heralded conference in Sheffield a few weeks ago. The party was, in my view, discussing sensible proposals for the national health service, but tucked away in the agenda was a motion on volunteerism. That might seem peripheral, but it is a helpful pointer to show what can be done. I suggest that the Minister look at a couple of points raised in a paper that we debated, which was launched by my noble Friend Baroness Barker. The paper pointed out that we do not always make the most of opportunities available for funding the voluntary sector. In October last year, a report by ResPublica described the system of gift aid as an “antiquated” bureaucracy, and pointed out that digital processing of gift aid could be worth £750 million to charities. The Minister was present at that launch, and he indicated that he would think about the proposal. Is there any news on that?
The report also suggested that charities should make more use of social networking to raise funds. Many charities have done good work using social networking, but many others have not. We suggest a fund to provide a social networking school for charities: in other words—yes—public funds to encourage charities and give them the training and expertise that they need. We cannot hide from the fact that voluntary sector budgets will face cuts as a result of cuts to public spending, but local authorities have shown that the way in which such cuts are managed can have a major impact. I do not want to get into a debate about £16 billion of cuts by this party or £14 billion by that party, and the effect on the voluntary sector. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was right to make a point about transparency. People and communities need to see the situation and put pressure on local authorities to drive the agenda as they see fit. That is a wise initiative.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
On local authority funding, we must understand why communities with the greatest deprivation are suffering the highest cuts. Transparency is required on that issue.
Mr Williams
I do not deviate from that message at all. My constituency includes communities with high rates of deprivation, so that is a strong point. As has been stated, however, the role of this debate and of Parliament is to allow hon. Members to challenge the Minister, and the hon. Lady has done so effectively in her intervention.
I would like to hear more from the Minister on the big society bank. I note his written statement, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Islington North said about the limitations of the transition fund, particularly the scale of that fund, which is oversubscribed. It would be a tragedy if some of our voluntary organisations were allowed to wither because of its limitations.
The written statement published this week talks about “developing a proposal”, “engaging with the sector”, “further development work” and talking to the European Commission about state aid approval. Impatience with this matter has been well articulated by the voluntary sector, and I would appreciate it if the Minister indicated what time scale he is working to. In reality, the big society bank seems to be some way off. There are concerns about the ability to defend charities and the voluntary sector from local authorities. The transition fund is over-subscribed. The stakes are high and there is a mixed message about how the voluntary sector can respond.
There is a great deal of support for the principles behind the big society, if not the term itself. It was noticeable that our Sheffield motion did not contain one reference to the big society, although volunteerism was described as “principled.” There will be unanimity across the Chamber on the role that volunteers can—and should—play in our society, working co-operatively with local authorities to deliver meaningful services to people on the ground. There are still huge, immediate concerns about funding, and I hope that the Minister will allay some of those concerns in his response to the debate.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for securing this debate. I will try to be brief. The Minister and I have already debated the future of the voluntary sector in Nottingham. As he knows, I believe that the Government are cutting public spending too far and too fast, and I have already mentioned my concern that the cuts are not being distributed fairly. The cuts will have a devastating impact on the city that I represent, and those who will bear the brunt of that impact are the very people least able to withstand it.
A number of hon. Members have expressed concerns about the limitations of the transition fund. Given the time scale involved, that fund will not protect the services that people rely on, the jobs of those working in the voluntary sector, or volunteering opportunities. In the short time available, I would like to focus on that last aspect.
The Government have stated that a key objective of the big society is to encourage and enable people to play a more active role in society. It is therefore incomprehensible and strange to make cuts that undermine the organisations that provide such opportunities. Nottingham has a volunteer centre that supports groups to recruit and retain volunteers, as well as helping volunteers to find suitable placements. In the past year, the centre matched about 2,500 people with volunteering opportunities in the city. In less than two weeks, however, all funding to support volunteering in Nottingham will end. The volunteer centre is particularly affected by the scrapping of the working neighbourhood fund and the national youth volunteering programme, which is called vinvolved. Eight members of staff will lose their jobs.
In Nottingham, over half of the volunteer centre’s service users are aged 25 or under; 16% of those supported by the v project last year were classed as NEET—not in education, employment or training. At a time of record youth unemployment, when one in five young people are unable to find work, it is counter-productive and short-sighted to cut that vital link to skills, training and confidence for the most disadvantaged groups. Figures released last week by the House of Commons Library show that over 3,500 young people aged 24 and under in Nottingham constituencies claim jobseeker’s allowance. In some areas, 19 young people are chasing every vacancy advertised by Jobcentre Plus.
The Government’s decisions do not only affect young people, and 40% of those who come to the volunteer centre are out of work. The loss of the service will reduce the opportunities available for people to retrain and improve their skills and employability, and it will also deprive organisations of volunteers who could help to deliver vital services. On CSV “Make a Difference Day”, I helped out at the local Barnardo’s shop. I talked to the volunteers, some of whom had become staff, and I heard how important volunteering was, particularly for people who were returning to work after a long period caring for a family, those getting into work, and those with learning difficulties or a disability. Taking away that opportunity removes that stepping stone into work.
Unfortunately, as hon. Members have mentioned, many local community and voluntary sector groups are unsure about the future of their own services. They will also lose the capacity to recruit and train volunteers. For most organisations, fewer paid staff means fewer volunteers, not more. I hope that the Minister appreciates that cutting resources to organisations that provide people with work and life experiences, skills training and support, is not sensible, practical or affordable. Finally, I invite the Minister to visit the volunteer centre in Nottingham so that he can see the outstanding work being done, hear what people have to say, and learn why they are so worried about the future of volunteering in the city, and about the future of the unemployed and vulnerable under this Government.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The issue affects a range of communities, including in my own constituency.
We all appreciate that these are difficult economic times and that it is tough to find savings, but the first message that we should be sending out from the debate, and one that I support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in articulating, is that local authorities should consider every other available saving before reducing support to our voluntary services. We should be squeezing budgets, sharing services, cutting back-office institutions, generating efficiencies and trying to get maximum value for money in procurement before we even begin to consider reducing funding for voluntary organisations. Warwickshire county council, for example, has cut its youth service budget, yet it has so far made only a 2% reduction in staffing. That is not how it should be. Every local authority should view reducing spending on voluntary organisations as a last resort.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
In my experience, quite a lot of councils have risen to the challenge from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My local borough council in Castle Point has gone so far as to cut members’ allowances this year to secure the funding for Crossroads, the Association of Voluntary Services and the citizens advice bureau, because it recognises their importance to the local community. Many councils are doing a very good job in that regard.
Chris White
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is clear that her council is a very good example of best practice.
Emma Reynolds
Has not the chair of the Local Government Association, who is a Conservative, said that the cuts imposed by central Government on local government go way beyond efficiency savings and will therefore necessarily put local government in the impossible position of having to cut some services?
Chris White
I refer the hon. Lady to the fact that these are difficult economic times, which were not brought about by the coalition, and something needs to be done. At the moment, I do not see the Opposition doing anything at all to begin to address some of these issues.
Voluntary services in a range of areas, from welfare to social care and from youth services to health care, enable the public sector to reduce “failure demand”, which is one of the biggest costs to the taxpayer. Because we fail to do the right thing the first time, we end up having to make more expensive interventions further down the line. That is not the right approach to providing services. Local authorities should work with the voluntary sector to use its expertise and understanding of the needs of service users to build better platforms. Although voluntary organisations can be a short-term expense, they can also generate significant savings in the long term. If anything, we should seek to shift funding towards voluntary organisations, rather than taking funding away from them.
An excellent report by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations called “Replacing the State?” gave four strong reasons why voluntary organisations are better placed to provide services than traditional in-house bodies. They are local and focus on the needs of their users, rather than on what is best for providers. They have higher levels of co-ordination, as they have a community-wide focus. They command a high level of public trust. They are incredibly innovative and able radically to change the delivery of services for the better.
There is an even plainer economic argument. Voluntary organisations are already saving the public sector more than £20 billion in staffing costs, given the fact that 17.1 million people volunteered in 2010. If we cut the funding on offer to the sector, we will reduce the infrastructure that channels those volunteers, either leaving people without services or leaving the public sector having to hire paid staff. I believe that if we integrate voluntary organisations further into public service delivery, we will not only see long-term costs go down, but we will be able to secure the future of many important groups throughout the country—something that can benefit all our local communities.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on obtaining the debate. In the short time available, I will consider two areas. The first is the cuts to the advice sector throughout the country and the complexity of the funding for that sector. Local authority funding constitutes the building blocks on which a local bureau or a local advice centre works, although such places have a range of other funding. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has recently published a report to show that, throughout the country, bureaux face on average a 15% cut. There are some notable exceptions, both good and bad, but a simple salami-slicing approach has been taken in a number of cases. Local authorities have not appreciated the cost to them of cutting those services—when the services go, people end up on their doorstep in a worse position.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Lady agree that a time of economic austerity, when the demands on citizens advice bureaux are greater than ever before, is a time not to cut funding for CAB and the work that they do, but to encourage them and give them more funding?
Yvonne Fovargue
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree.
Also at risk was the funding for face-to-face debt advice, which has been given a year’s reprieve, although there are still arguments about the management costs centrally. It is proposed that social welfare law should go out of the scope of legal aid funding at the very time when we are introducing a new welfare system. Many bureaux have funding from primary care trusts, which are also going. Advice agencies could disappear—97% of law centre funding is under threat. I make this plea to the Minister: will he please look across the board and bring all the Departments together when they consider the funding for advice services? Otherwise, the cuts to each Department will affect that sector particularly badly.
I also want to consider my local services in Makerfield borough. Makerfield and Wigan benefit from 24,900 volunteer hours a week, and 68,835 people benefit from the services provided. Those volunteers need the support of paid staff and, often, the support of the infrastructure organisations. We would not expect any employee to work without the support of management and without a decent regime of health and safety, supervision and career development, so why do we expect volunteers to do that? That is what the cuts mean—the volunteers will not be there without the support of those paid staff.
Central Government are looking at cutting the infrastructure organisations. One particular concern for my local council for voluntary service is the vinvolved funding. Over three years, the vinvolved project in Wigan has dealt with 1,071 youths, most of whom were classified as NEET—not in education, employment or training. There has been a significant reduction in repeat antisocial behaviour orders for that group and an increase in the number of people going into work. Cutting that programme will leave those youths with nowhere to go. They will be back on street corners in the neighbourhoods that have previously complained about them. It is so important to young people that they be brought into volunteering. My local branch of Age Concern has pointed out to me the value of bringing those young people into its organisation and the cross-generational work that that has engendered.
Emma Reynolds
Is it not sheer madness for the Government to cut vinspired when youth unemployment is at record levels?
Yvonne Fovargue
Absolutely. My local CVS managed the future jobs fund in my borough, and youth unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds was reduced by 56% in 2010 as a result. It halved the number of jobseekers from 900 to 450 in that period. To cut that at this time, when young people are coming out of education and training without a job to look forward to, is sheer folly.
I do not believe that the big society is new—in my borough or in any other borough—but I do believe that, due to the cuts, it is becoming the shrinking society, which is dangerous.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. I want to follow what seemed to me to be her theme—what on earth are the Government playing at? In their wholesale rush to get rid of everything that the Labour Government did, they are destroying structures that would help to deliver the big society. I shall talk specifically, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), about vinvolved—the national young volunteers service. Its aim was to get 500,000 young people into volunteering. It developed out of millennium volunteers and was directly funded by the Government. It has eight days left to be saved.
The initiative was funded by the Government and run by v, the independent charity. There were 107 vinvolved teams nationally. Its focus was on creating new volunteering opportunities, including working with community and voluntary organisations, to create more high-quality, diverse volunteer opportunities for young people; supporting local organisations that work with young volunteers; brokering 16 to 25-year-olds into volunteering opportunities; finding the right opportunities for new and existing volunteers; helping young people to set up their own voluntary projects; and championing youth-led action, with each team including a youth action team made up of young volunteers giving advice on what projects and work vinvolved teams should get involved in.
What happened? Young people were matched to opportunities that suited their interests and aspirations, and that were sensitive to their individual circumstances. That was particularly important for young people with multiple barriers to participation—for example, people leaving care, asylum seekers, refugees and people with mental health issues. The vinvolved project particularly targeted young people who would not normally be involved in volunteering and who faced great difficulties in their lives. Such young people were at risk of being socially marginalised. However, apart from the effect on the young people themselves, there is also a real cost to society when young people are no longer part of it and have additional needs, which society must then tackle.
In matching young people with appropriate and fulfilling volunteering opportunities, which in turn acted as a stepping-stone for their progression, vinvolved allowed many young people to find a new, positive direction. The project enhanced employability and provided references for young people who had problems and who may never have completed their secondary education. Those young people may have had nobody in their lives to provide a reference for them, but they got one through their volunteering opportunities. The project also supported those at risk of social exclusion, increasing their confidence, helping to overcome feelings of isolation and loneliness, and improving community relations as young people from different communities came together to work across communities and with people from different backgrounds, including with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people, and black and minority ethnic young people. I should add that the voluntary work brokered by Manchester vinvolved equates to £232,380—I like the precise figure it has produced—based on salaries at the national minimum wage.
I could speak for a great deal longer about vinvolved, but I am aware of the time. I could also speak for a long time about the wonderful young people who have been involved in the project, whom I had the honour of meeting at an awards event for Greater Manchester a few weeks ago. Those young people have overcome their disabilities and other issues, such as the need to care for relations or the fact that they have come from broken homes or experienced homelessness, and they have gone on to contribute enormously to the society they live in. Without projects such as vinvolved, such young people will not get involved in volunteering, because they need organisations to support them, bring them together and give them the chance to make a difference to their lives and the lives of people in the community.
The vinvolved initiative is the sort of project that the Government need if they are ever to deliver their big society. I agree with my hon. Friends that we already have the big society, but if we want to extend and expand it, we must have projects that support the voluntary sector and that help young people and adults into volunteering. There are only eight days left to save vinvolved, and I really hope that the Minister will act so that we can continue a project that serves the needs of young people and their communities in such a splendid way.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am here to listen to the debate and to contribute where necessary, Mr Amess, but I have not prepared a speech.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
I apologise. I am embarrassed, because we have six minutes left before the winding-up speeches. Does anyone else want to contribute?
Catherine McKinnell
I could certainly make a contribution, Mr Amess. You simply took me by surprise.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate. It has been very instructive to listen to the contributions made from both sides of the Chamber.
People in Newcastle are concerned about the speed with which the local authority cuts have been imposed and about the impact that that has had on the voluntary sector and support for it. Newcastle is one of the cities that has a thriving citizens advice bureau service, and it served more than 26,000 people last year, but it has now received a 20% salami-sliced funding cut, which is one of the worst cuts to services in the country.
The issue remains very much the speed with which the cuts have been imposed on local authorities, as well as their impact on different regions, particularly urban areas, where cuts to funding to combat deprivation have had a disproportionate impact—for example, in cities such as Newcastle upon Tyne.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
Clearly, all Members in the Chamber share the view that the volunteering sector is important, but while listening to Opposition Members’ contributions I had the strong feeling that we have created an over-dependence on the public sector for volunteering organisations’ funding in the past 10 years. That over-dependence is as much about creating a big state as it is about creating a big society.
Does the hon. Lady agree that many of the best organisations working with local communities—certainly in constituencies such as mine—are free from Government intervention and Government funding? The point has been strongly made that there are bureaucratic issues in volunteering when organisations depend on Government funding. We need to create a society in which people volunteer, but do not depend on Government funding to do so.
Catherine McKinnell
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assertion. I agree that there are some fantastic voluntary organisations that do not rely on any public funding. They are supported, and have to be supported, across the country, and they are warmly welcomed. However, one of the main issues is that the abilities of those organisations are not necessarily distributed in such as way as to target the most hard-to-reach areas, which require more structured funding to support and assist voluntary activities. That point has been made very clearly by my hon. Friends and, indeed, by Government Members.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
There might be another interpretation of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), which is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state, and of the importance of funding in ensuring that the voluntary sector has had the capacity to thrive over the past 13 years. One of the dangers now is that services will be affected when funding is taken away and that the capacity to thrive, as well as the voluntary sector’s ability to deliver activities and to be a voice for many people in our communities, will be damaged. Some of the comments that we have heard reflect a misunderstanding of why it is so important to support the voluntary sector if we want volunteering to thrive and if we want to tap into all the benefits it offers our society.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is exactly the point that needs to be made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said at the beginning of the debate, there is genuine concern that we need to understand how the voluntary sector works, how it is funded and how it is supported. There is huge concern about the Government’s pursuit of an economic policy that is reducing the deficit at a rate that is too fast, that is reckless and that will cause long-term damage to our civil society.
I want to put those issues on the record. The voluntary sector in Newcastle continues to thrive, but it sits in sheer trepidation, because most organisations have no security of funding beyond the end of this month.
Barbara Keeley
Before my hon. Friend finishes, does she agree that we could characterise this debate as one in which Government Members have hectored and lectured local authorities about not cutting grants to voluntary organisations in their areas, even though Ministers are cutting the number of their strategic partners from 42 to 14, and cutting their funding, too? Is it not inappropriate for coalition Government Members to lecture local authorities about what they must and must not do, when they themselves are scything away the infrastructure of the voluntary sector?
Catherine McKinnell
Absolutely. The point could not have been put more clearly. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
May I say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess? I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for securing this extremely timely debate. Its timeliness is evidenced by the large number of Members here this morning.
At this time, up and down the country, voluntary and community-based organisations are extremely concerned about their funding situation. Some, sadly, are trying to cope with vastly reduced budgets for next year and uncertainty as to whether they can even continue to operate. My hon. Friend in her amazingly comprehensive contribution, pointed to Labour’s proud record of supporting the voluntary sector—in contrast, I think, to the withdrawal of funding we see from the coalition parties. She used the cuts to TimeBank as an example of how that withdrawal will affect volunteering and volunteering support organisations. I want to speak about TimeBank in a minute or two.
My hon. Friend also emphasised the importance of supporting advice services, particularly in today’s economic climate. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) stressed that issue in what I thought was a very passionate contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South also reminded us, as she often does, of the need to continue to support carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) hit the nail on the head when he said that this Government simply do not understand the nature of the modern-day voluntary sector and its wide range of activities, or the complexity that exists in the neighbourhoods in which it operates or the complexity of the problems that it must face.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Actually, I think the point my hon. Friend made was that the current Government do not understand the nature of the modern-day voluntary sector. That point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) in her spontaneous but extremely informed—if I may say—contribution. If he will forgive me for saying so, the contribution from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) verified the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North. Other Members also made useful points, which I will deal with as I go through my speech.
I want to emphasise two things at the outset. First, in government, as in opposition, Labour knew that the deficit had to be reduced, but, crucially, we would not have cut so deeply or so quickly. Evidence seems to suggest that it is the up-front cuts to local government and central Government Departments that are proving so damaging to the voluntary sector. We know that it is some of our poorest areas with the highest levels of need that are facing the largest cuts. That point was excellently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who spoke about the huge impact the cuts to the voluntary sector will have on her constituency.
Secondly, it seems particularly unfair to ask more of the voluntary sector in terms of delivering services and filling gaps in provision, while cutting the resource base of a range of civil society groups. It has led the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to conclude:
“The scale and speed of the cuts affecting the voluntary and community sector are severe and there is a very real danger that the sector will not be in any fit state to contribute to the ‘Big Society’ unless further action is taken.”
I can see little evidence that the Government are taking that further action.
The Government often raise the transition fund, which was mentioned by Members today, as the mechanism for plugging the gap. However, it is restrictive in coverage and demands significant change from a great many organisations—for example, they must become social enterprises—and a huge number of the 1,700 applications are still being assessed. Other funding that may reach the sector in future, such as that from the big society bank, is unlikely to be made available early enough to prevent some organisations from going under, regardless of how useful they are to their local communities, and we heard examples of that today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made a passionate speech about vinvolved in her constituency and the need for it to continue to support young people’s volunteering. Cuts are being made regardless of how good organisations are at providing services or supporting volunteers.
We have had some indication of what the impact of the cuts will be. The sector receives £12.8 billion from a range of statutory sources, and about 52% of that comes from local authorities. Overwhelmingly, that is in the form of contracts for services delivered, rather than grants. I am not sure that Government Members picked up that point. Although it is difficult to put a precise figure on the totality of the cuts affecting the sector nationally and locally, the available estimates put it at somewhere between £3.2 billion and £5.1 billion. That is a huge sum, and a substantial proportion of the sector’s income from statutory sources. At the same time, giving is £700 million less than its pre-recession level, so the gap is not being plugged by another source. The end of transitional relief on gift aid in April 2011 will cost the sector at least £100 million, and the increase in the main rate of VAT to 20% will cost the sector an estimated £150 million per year. This adds up to a range of cuts and cost-saving measures by the Government that are impacting on the sector’s ability to deliver.
The Government want to encourage more services to be delivered by employee-owned companies, mutuals, co-operatives and social enterprises. Of course, Opposition Members are not against that as a general policy direction, especially as it is one that we started while in government. We are against the rushed withdrawal of funding from organisations without time for them to develop new sources of funding and without a framework to help them to manage the transition from a charity or partner in service delivery with the local council to a social enterprise or something similar. That transition takes time, support and resources.
There seems to be a particular willingness on the part of Government to cut infrastructure organisations such as TimeBank, Volunteering England, local CVSs and similar agencies. Where organisations directly support volunteers, drastic cuts might be very short-sighted indeed, especially when the previous citizenship survey showed a reduction in the number of people volunteering. We need to have more volunteering support organisations, or at least support the ones we have adequately. TimeBank and Volunteering England do an excellent job at supporting volunteer development, so why dismantle tried and tested methods of effective volunteer support in the vague hope that something might become available in future?
We know from the Charity Commission that voluntary organisations employ approximately 780,000 staff, supported by 2.7 million volunteers who help them to fulfil their aims. It appears that the Government want to rely on volunteers more and more, but they do not always recognise that volunteers need to be trained and encouraged. The cuts agenda may put at risk the key planks of support for volunteers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South told us how Labour has supported the voluntary sector. We understand it and value it, particularly its expertise and flexibility, and its ability to innovate. Before Labour left office, we set out radical plans to boost funding for volunteers and to make asset-transfers to the third sector. We designed the social investment wholesale bank, which was ready for launch, and launched the social impact bond. We also supported the move for more mutuals and co-ops. We would like to see the Government building on that agenda, not dismantling it. We do not want to see the sector devastated by unnecessarily deep and rapid cuts, that at worst will merely provide an opportunity for the further marketisation of our public services.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a great pleasure, Mr Amess, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate and on the way that she spoke. However, special congratulations are in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on thinking so quickly on her feet, and on representing so sincerely sentiments that I heard directly only a few weeks ago in Newcastle from people concerned about what is going on.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South spoke passionately about TimeBank, and tried to make some wider points. I know that she has a particular interest in carers, and has done some distinguished work in this place since being elected on that important agenda. The leadership of TimeBank is here, and those people are probably shooting daggers at me; we shall meet soon to discuss the decision, but of course they will not agree with it.
I shall start with the specifics before going on to wider matters. I make no apology for rationalising the Office for Civil Society strategic partner programme. We inherited a situation with more than 40 strategic partners and almost as many civil servants, at a cost of some £12 million a year. I could not see what value the taxpayer was getting from that programme, and I received a lot of support from within the sector to rationalise it.
The intention to rationalise was communicated to all strategic partners in July 2010. As a result, all partners were effectively at risk of seeing some reduction in their funding. We announced yesterday that we would be reducing it to nine organisations or partnerships, and I am satisfied with the mix. The simple fact is that no organisation has the right to be a strategic partner of the Government. The right has to be earned, and the process must be run robustly and professionally by civil servants, I received a recommendation about those nine organisations, but unfortunately TimeBank was not included. I do not expect it to like that decision, but it was a robust process which I think was run properly.
Mr Hurd
May I finish my point about figures, because it is perhaps the most important? Does it mean that TimeBank and other organisations that are working hard to manage and structure volunteering opportunities and inspiring people to volunteer will have no further opportunity to access taxpayers’ money? Of course not. I refer the hon. Lady and all with an interest in the subject to the recently published Giving Green Paper, which will lead to a White Paper. In it, we made it clear that we will be investing in a volunteering infrastructure programme with voluntary match funding, which will be worth about £40 million over this Parliament. There will be opportunities for TimeBank and other organisations to add value to those programmes.
Barbara Keeley
As the Minister is touching on his reasons for cutting away at the infrastructure of an organisation that supports volunteering for hospices, for the Olympics and for carers, I invite him to explain exactly why—beyond a departmental goal to rationalise the number of strategic partners—the Government are cutting away at a vital organisation? The same question could be asked about others. TimeBank is crucial to supporting volunteering, and has an excellent 10-year track record. Indeed, he sent it a message when it achieved its 10-year anniversary. Why is he doing this?
Mr Hurd
I tried to explain why earlier. We ran a process to identify a shorter list of strategic partners, with criteria; TimeBank and other organisations on a longer list did not make it through that process. As I said, no organisation has the right to be a strategic partner of the Government, but I do not expect them to be comfortable with that.
I have to tell the hon. Lady that her approach is symptomatic of the previous Government’s approach to public money. There was absolutely no rigour in the strategic partner programme that we inherited; we are trying to introduce it for the first time. The hon. Lady speaks about our cutting funding, but she completely ignores the fact that there will be further opportunities, in what are frankly more appropriate programmes, for organisations such as TimeBank to access taxpayers’ money and continue their work.
Mr Hurd
I wish to make progress.
The wider context is extremely important. It is not just about TimeBank, or the other organisations mentioned by the hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). There is considerable concern in communities across the country about the impact of the cuts.
It would have been nice to have heard more recognition from the Opposition about the economic context, but that fell to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White). The fact is that we are spending £120 million a day in interest, and that is entirely unsustainable. A sector that receives £13 billion of taxpayers’ money cannot be immune from the process.
The public hate to see politicians playing the blame game, and I understand that, but nor should we take them for fools. I believe that they understand the basics—that the Labour Government left this country massively over-borrowed and that the coalition Government were elected to sort it out. That means that tough choices have to be made by councils. As my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington and for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) said, some have decided to give priority to cutting internal costs and making efficiencies before making cuts in the voluntary and community sectors. Others have taken a different course for very different reasons.
No one pretends that it is an easy business—it is not—but the Government want to put in place active programmes to help the voluntary and community sector manage the transition. We understand the need for such a transition—from a situation in which too many organisations depend on state income to one in which the sector will have to diversify its sources of income in new ways.
We want to help manage the transition because we see big opportunities for the voluntary and community sector to do more to deliver more public services, and to have a bigger voice at the local level, exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. In future, there will be many more arguments about local priorities, and the voluntary and community sector can give a voice to people who often struggle to have their voices heard. The localism agenda will give them a big opportunity. We are obviously very ambitious in our wish to encourage people to give more time and money to help others.
Mr Hurd
I do not have time to give way.
People will go to charities and the voluntary sector. There are significant medium and long-term opportunities for the sector, but we have to help manage the short-term transition.
That brings me to the transition fund and the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Most of the answers are contained in the basic statement. The fund had to be rationed. It had to be targeted on those organisations most vulnerable to a cut in public grant or contract. We took advice from the sector on the criteria. We had to set an income threshold.
We are proud of the progress that BIG fund has managed for us. I visited an organisation yesterday that has benefited from it. The charities’ fund is £100 million, and it was topped up yesterday by £7 million from the Department of Health. That is serious money, and it will help organisations that are particularly vulnerable, or that have more than 60% of income vulnerability to the state, to make the transition.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) asked about the big society bank. It is not a panacea for cuts in grant. It is a serious strategic long-term intervention, designed to make it easier for the sector to access capital. I expect between £60 million and £100 million from dormant bank accounts to be released in the third quarter and be made available for deployment. I expect £200 million to come from the four major banks before the end of the year. The balance of the bank’s capitalisation will come from the rest of the dormant bank accounts, once they have passed through the state aid process, but it is difficult to pin that down at the moment.
We are talking about a £600 million opportunity—a serious attempt to make it easier for social entrepreneurs to access capital in this country. It is part of our programme to help the voluntary and community sector play a full role; it will help to build a stronger society, which we want to encourage, and a better partnership between the state, business, the voluntary and community sector, and active citizens who feel empowered to take more control over their lives.
Steel Industry (Carbon Floor Pricing)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Amess, for the opportunity to take part in the debate today. I am so grateful for the attendance of Members with an interest in steel, which shows the strength of feeling on the issue.
I put in for the debate after one of my regular visits to Llanwern steelworks in my constituency. There has been a steelworks plant at Llanwern since 1962. Although steel making ceased in 2001, Tata at Llanwern is still a major employer with a hot strip mill and a galvanising line run by an extremely enthusiastic work force who make a high-quality product for the automotive industry, among others.
The industry has had ups and downs over the years, with the loss of the heavy end and heavy job losses in 2001, but the dedicated work force produce a high-quality product. Tata’s investment down the road in Port Talbot, to which Llanwern is inextricably linked, means that at the moment things are looking good and employment is back up to around 700. This is a good-news story, but the threat to the steel industry from Government legislation is making the industry wary, and I want to explore that today.
I am also glad to be introducing the debate because on two occasions in the past week the issue of carbon floor pricing has been raised: in the Welsh Grand Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), and in the all-party group on energy-intensive industries. Startlingly, there was no Government response in either forum to address the industry’s concerns. I hope that today’s short debate will give the Minister the chance to hear the very real concerns and address them in person so that the industry knows where it stands.
Although “steel” appears in the glamorous title of the debate, the issues apply equally to other intensive energy users such as the paper, glass and ceramics industries, which employ about 225,000 workers in the UK. The issue that concerns the industry is the carbon floor price, which might be introduced in today’s Budget, although the Minister will know more about that than I do.
The Conservative manifesto pledged to reform the climate change levy to introduce a carbon floor price or a stability mechanism so that the total cost of carbon for generators could be more certain. A policy seems to have developed in practice that increases the cost of carbon for UK electricity generators, yet is seen as another tax on the fuel used by generators. The Government’s stated aim for the carbon floor price is to boost investment in low-carbon energy, especially in nuclear power, by putting a minimum price on carbon through taxing fuels used for generating electricity according to carbon intensity. That pushes up the cost of producing electricity from high-carbon fuels such as coal, making renewable and low-carbon means of electricity generation relatively cheaper. UK energy-intensive producers will therefore face huge cost increases that will not be borne by other competitors elsewhere in Europe or the rest of the world.
The UK steel industry’s submission to the consultation makes it clear that the carbon floor price is the wrong policy for three reasons. First, multiple regulations are trying to fix individual problems in lots of different ways. Carbon is already priced through the European Union emissions trading scheme, the climate change levy and the carbon reduction commitment, alongside the renewable subsidies. Secondly, it runs the very real risk of having a negative impact on the competitiveness of UK manufacturers—a disincentive to invest in the UK. Finally, the industry claims it is questionable whether the policy will deliver the desired outcome at all.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for securing this important debate. Does she agree that many of the industries we are talking about are owned by foreign companies, which can choose where to invest, so if the UK adopts policies different from those of the rest of the world, that will simply drive those industries out of this country?
Jessica Morden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-made point, which covers the precise subject of the debate. I shall return to it.
We all know we have to reduce our carbon footprint, but industries such as steel use large amounts of power out of necessity and have no other realistic option at the moment. In the steel industry in my constituency, I see an industry that supports plans to make the transition to a low-carbon economy and is actively trying to be involved in being part of the solution to reduce CO2 emissions. For Tata, that might involve developing products and improving processes such as the £60 million basic oxygen steelmaking—BOS—gas recovery investment it has made at its Port Talbot plant, which will have great benefits for us at Llanwern, or products such as the photovoltaic project being developed in Shotton.
It is worth remembering that to build low-carbon energy sources, improve energy efficiency and drive advancements in low-carbon construction, steel will be in high demand. Steel is a high-carbon industry in its production, but an essential product for the low-carbon economy.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend seen scrap metal being recycled in an electric arc furnace? An element powered up to 2,000° of heat plunges into it and recycles instantly, but that requires a huge amount of electricity and energy. I understand where the Government are coming from, but unless they find a solution to the problem, their proposals might have the perverse effect of making that unprofitable, and their welcome focus on manufactures and exports—there is a demand—might come to nought. For the first time in 17 years as MP for Rotherham I am desperately worried about the future of electric arc furnace steel manufacture in our country. We must find a tweak and a solution to the problem, so I welcome my hon. Friend securing the debate.
Jessica Morden
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s intervention. Steel making is an incredibly beautiful process. His point is that we must ensure balance and that the new tax does not drive heavy industry out of this country.
Steel is a high-carbon industry in its production, but an essential product for a low-carbon economy. Surely we all want the UK’s low-carbon economy to be built with steel produced in the UK, not imported from China, Russia, Ukraine and other steel-producing countries that do not face the same regulatory restraints.
The industry would say that there is consensus for some regulation in this area, but that current policies are complex and over-burdensome. As I have said, if carbon floor pricing goes ahead, there will be four prices on carbon—the carbon floor price, the climate change levy, the carbon reduction commitment emissions trading scheme, and the renewable subsidies—but no consistent way of measuring carbon as between those. The industry argues that if the Government are to price carbon, they must make it simpler for everybody involved.
The major issue, to which the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) alluded, is competitiveness. The debate takes place in the context of escalating costs for UK steel producers from existing UK and EU climate policies that are eroding their international competitiveness. Nobody else in Europe or the world will face those costs, which is a threat to UK steel. The Government are asking the private sector, especially manufacturing, to create jobs, but that will not happen if we impose certain conditions and have carbon leakage. Manufacturers will choose to go to parts of the world where they can get away with less stringent conditions. They will be able to produce steel with the same amount of emissions and we will have lost the industry. Where is the sense in that? That applies not only to some developing countries, but, most worryingly, to Europe. No other EU Government are making similar proposals, and many have taken steps to reduce the impact on trade-exposed industries precisely to avoid the problem.
The figures are quite stark. Tata Steel estimates that by 2020 the cost of carbon floor pricing will add at least an extra £20 million per year to its energy bill. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the Waters Wye report, which documents the cumulative impact of all climate change policies on heavy energy users.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has secured a very important debate and she is making an excellent argument for the steel industry. Is she aware that we now have a 14-month high in the inflation rate, with the retail prices index running at 5.5%? That is pushing sterling to a much higher rate than previously. Coupled with current commodity prices, particularly for coke and iron ore, there is already a strain on the industry.
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I am sure the Minister will address. My hon. Friend is, of course, quite an expert in this field.
Tata’s submission to the consultation on carbon floor pricing also questions the effectiveness of the measure, claiming that it will have only a limited impact on reducing carbon emissions, even though its cost is real and direct. Tata’s submission suggests better ways to achieve lower emissions, which I will not go into now, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the submission and ask that further consultation with the industry be pursued.
I also ask the Minister to address several other points. It would be helpful if he outlined how the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has worked with the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change to limit the impact on intensive energy users of the proposals for carbon floor pricing and of the wider electricity market reform. Does he accept that the Government’s proposals will have a serious impact on the competitiveness of key industries? If so, does he understand how such an impact will directly conflict with the Government’s policies on private sector growth and an export-led recovery?
How do the Government intend to ensure that these measures do not impact on the competitiveness of UK manufacturers? Given that there was only a very short time for consultation—I believe it was about six to eight weeks over Christmas—will the Government at least commit to carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the impact on energy-intensive industries of their proposals for electricity market reform and a carbon floor price? Many organisations raised fears about the proposals during the consultation, including the Engineering Employers Federation, the CBI, the TUC and the Energy Intensive Users Group. Has the Minister taken their views on board and are the Government listening?
Finally, in fairness to the steel industry, I must say that I believe that it is continuously looking for ways to improve its CO2 performance through improvements to processes, products and investment, particularly in research and development. The UK steel industry wants to be part of the solution to climate change, but it needs the Government to understand that it must compete on a level playing field around the world to do so. Otherwise, we will face a situation where companies could make long-term investment decisions based on the Government’s policies and take their investment plans abroad. As an MP with a steel interest, I certainly do not want that to happen, so let us make our steel industry part of the solution to climate change. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
Thank you very much, Mr Amess, for calling me to speak. It is good to see you in the Chair.
I want to begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman—sorry, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). There is obviously a little too much gin in the water in Westminster Hall. I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on securing the debate but on her incisive comments about the balance that we all have to strike between the environmental and business challenges. I will respond specifically to the points that she has made.
It is slightly unfortunate that today is the day of the Budget because, as right hon. and hon. Members will understand, that somewhat hampers my ability to be more specific about measures such as the carbon floor price. The Chancellor will be on his feet imminently and I am sure that he will set out some things in that regard in more detail. The hon. Lady not only has an interest in the steel industry in her own constituency but she is chair of the all-party group on the steel and metal related industry. That combination of interests was very evident in her speech and indeed in her responses to questions from Members, all of whom have a strong constituency interest in this important industry. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) is absolutely right that this is a very important industry. It is dramatic, in the way that he rightly described, but it is also fundamentally important to many other industries, particularly in manufacturing. Later today, the Chancellor will set out our framework for growth for manufacturing, which I hope Members will welcome. That framework reflects some of the long-term issues that the steel industry and similar industries face.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I should point out that I am speaking today in my capacity as the MP for Ogmore and not in my capacity as a shadow Energy Minister.
I am not asking the Minister to reveal the details of what is in the Budget. However, he just used the word “framework”. That is quite interesting, because the Energy Intensive Users Group and others have been calling for us not to pin this down, right here, right now, in the Budget, but to allow scope for further discussion. Is that what the Minister meant when he used the term “framework”?
Mr Prisk
Yes. The manufacturing framework covers issues that are broader than the issue that we are discussing in this debate. It is about all the issues of capital investment, skills and so on. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. What we have tried to do with the growth reviews for manufacturing as a whole—I am just going slightly beyond the purview of this debate, Mr Amess, but not too far—is to ensure that we have listened carefully to manufacturers about all the different aspects of manufacturing, so that we understand how the proposal will work. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the framework needs to be one in which the Government are a partner with industry, so that it is not simply something that we have decided is the right thing without listening to others. That will be reflected particularly in our response to energy-intensive users.
Ian Swales
I will be very quick. Is the Minister aware that this very week we have had the first full meeting of the new all-party group on energy-intensive industries? I am the vice-chair of that group and I have never been to an all-party group with a higher attendance. Every single industry that has been mentioned in this debate was represented at senior level, which illustrates the level of concern about the issue. It also supports what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) was saying, that we need time to engage with the Government to ensure that they truly understand these issues.
Mr Prisk
I welcome that. It is very important that we have a good and thorough debate, and that Members across the House can participate in it. That is very welcome news.
The industry is crucial. We have talked about it in principle, but when one looks at the facts, last year, some 9.7 million tonnes of crude steel were produced in the UK and the industry employs 25,000 people directly. Encouragingly—and this goes back to the point that the right hon. Member for Rotherham made—about half of the UK steel industry’s output is now exported and we are now a net exporter. That is not necessarily something that one reads in the newspapers, but it is a success story, and in that context I commend both the previous Administration and the industry itself. That is quite something.
In Wales—this is particularly relevant to the hon. Member for Newport East—I believe that about 7,000 people are employed in the steel industry, with 4,000 employed at Port Talbot and 1,000 at the Llanwern rolling mills, so that is an important part of the sector. What is encouraging is that despite the fact that in 2008, the industry saw demand for its products drop by 50%, which would be devastating for any industry, it has been able, through good management of production, good co-operation and a flexible and committed work force, to ensure that there were not any major long-term job losses in those plants, which have been able to come back into production. Of course, there were some job losses, but in any industry if demand and production drop by half, that is potentially a killer. Thankfully, that did not happen.
I turn to the specific issue of the carbon floor price, before addressing the energy-intensive industries strategy and thus responding to the question about what my Department is doing to mitigate the impact. We have just consulted on the issue across Government, although the consultation was of course led by the Department for Energy and Climate Change. To respond to a question from the hon. Member for Newport East, we consciously made a specific point of talking to the key industries involved, including the Engineering Employers Federation, which she mentioned, so that we have a careful understanding of the practicalities of the measure for all energy users and for particular industries.
Mr MacShane
I will be brief. I regard the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as an ally in this process while, as we know, the real enemy is across the road in the Treasury. Then there is DECC, with its open-toed sandals, greenery and all that nonsense.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) told me on the Floor of the House before Christmas that he would accept an invitation to meet a delegation, but nothing happened. I then asked him about it face to face in the Lobby, and he said, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry, Denis, we’ll try and sort this out”, but nothing happened. Does the Minister accept that there has not been enough consultation, especially with hon. Members, the workers and trade union employees? As this process unfolds—I think that we will be discussing this for some time; it will not be fixed for ever, either today or tomorrow—will he agree to receive a bit more input from right hon. and hon. Members, the trade unions and the work force?
Mr Prisk
My hon. Friend the Energy Minister is a very busy man, and I suspect that it will be through no fault of his own if he has not yet been able to fulfil that obligation. However, the door is not closed in this area. There is work to be done. My view, and I am sure that it is the view of my hon. Friend, too, is that we would always encourage involvement in this process. If there is an opportunity to do that at the right moment, yes, we will do so.
Let me come back to where we are on the carbon price floor, then look at the strategy as a whole and at how we mitigate some of the impacts. The aim is to encourage investment in low-carbon electricity generation, by giving greater support, yes, and also by providing certainty on the price of carbon in the power sector. Getting that right is important for the whole of manufacturing but, as Members have rightly pointed out, we must strike a balance between the environmental gain and improvements in energy efficiency, which could help all manufacturing, and doing so in a way that does not pinch key energy-intensive sectors unreasonably. Members will understand that as the price is going to be set in the Budget later today, and as I would like to continue to be a Minister of State for a little while yet, it would be unwise to pre-empt what the Chancellor will say, in what I know will be an excellent Budget.
Let me turn to the question that the hon. Member for Newport East rightly asked about what my Department is doing in conjunction with others to consider how to mitigate the impact. We are working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change on a comprehensive strategy on energy-intensive industries, including steel. The strategy is deliberately intended to look at energy costs, and to assess the incremental changes that industries have made—I will come on to some that have very successfully been achieved in Wales—and possibly the longer-term transformational changes that might help the industry to deal with the bigger, long-term issues.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The Minister has said that a line in the Budget will set the carbon floor price, but before he moves away from the issue I would like to ask him whether he is alive to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) about the complexity of different measures. The carbon floor price sits alongside the ongoing electricity market review and other measures that are already in place. Is the hon. Gentleman, as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, focused on streamlining, and on removing complexity to achieve the overall outcome? Is he having those discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change to see what is the simplest, most direct and most effective way of achieving the decarbonisation objectives, and boosting renewables and potentially the nuclear industry—despite what is going on in that field at the moment—while at the same time stripping out layers of complexity and bureaucracy?
Mr Prisk
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right. There are two challenges for the Government in this context: dealing with the low-carbon energy issue and ensuring that the lights do not go off in a few years’ time. Those two challenges do not necessarily run in the same direction, and if there is any conflict or tension we need to ensure that we get the balance right. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I want to ensure that we do not lose our competitive edge. The export roles that the right hon. Member for Rotherham referred to are very important. We must ensure that we remain competitive and continue to be a net exporter, and I would like to encourage that.
Let me come back to the strategy and explain to Members what is in it, how it works, and how we are involving the industry. The strategy is designed to deal with a number of key objectives. First, it will assess the potential for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, not just in steel but across the industries, and look at the interplay between the sectors. There are a number of subsectors, and if we are not careful we will lose the capability of the larger sector because we have not taken care of the smaller ones. That is sensitive issue of which we are very much aware, and there is a thorough technological review of the sectors and their processes, because that, I suspect, will be where the transformational change can best be achieved in the longer term. There have nevertheless been some very good short-term changes, which I will mention in a moment.
Secondly, what we are trying to do with the strategy is build on existing research and both public and industry initiatives, to look at how reducing emissions can be progressed further. In many ways, it is about extolling and developing best practice. Thirdly, the review looks at a whole range of ways of decarbonising energy-intensive sectors. We are examining improvements to existing processes, as well as looking at substitutes and alternatives. That is partly to do with materials, as well as with processes. Fourthly, the strategy is embedded in a collaborative process with industry, the regulators and the various experts engaged in the field, such as institutions dealing with materials, and we seek to provide evidence to make the case for the EU to move towards a 30% EU emissions reduction target, to which we committed ourselves in the coalition agreement. That is an important shift, and it comes back to competitiveness.
Lastly, we are looking to introduce, promptly but not unduly hastily, a range of policy options on which we can work with the industry so that it can make the transition, while—from my point of view—always looking at competitiveness. That is a difficult balancing act, and I suspect that we will not achieve it perfectly because of the inherent tensions and the nature of the industry, and of the steel sector in particular. We are looking at the sector leaders and the supply chain, and at engaging with them through the strategy, to ensure that it can work. Although there are natural anxieties there is some really good practice, and I want to highlight a couple of examples that I suspect the hon. Members for Newport East and for Ogmore will know, given that they are Welsh Members.
Last spring, Tata Steel in Europe completed a £60 million investment to recycle process gases from the Port Talbot melt shop. The new facility reduces Port Talbot’s carbon dioxide emissions by 240,000 tonnes a year, its particulate emissions by 40 tonnes a year and, most interestingly, cuts its energy requirement from the grid by half. As the right hon. Member for Rotherham rightly says, this is a genuinely energy-intensive industry. It is also an industry in which we need to be able to control the energy in key bursts, and therefore the ability to reduce the energy requirement from the grid by half is tremendously encouraging.
A further £185 million investment at Port Talbot was announced last August, and the project, which is due to finish in July, will involve the rebuilding of blast furnace No. 4 and will increase liquid steel capacity at the plant by 400,000 tonnes, while improving environmental performance and safety. If production can be increased and performance improved, let us see how we can roll that out and work with the rest of the industry on that best practice.
Tom Blenkinsop
I think that that is a good argument, but if the Minister or the Government are going to propose new taxation on carbon, one option might be to recycle some of those funds into industrial programmes that would help the steel industry across the board and across the nation to do similar projects.
Mr Prisk
We are always mindful of the need to consider whether we can help the industry, particularly where there are up-front capital projects that need to be bridged, and I am always in discussions with the sector. I cannot make open tax promises at this stage as that is not my job; it is the job of the Chancellor, and rightly so. I am nevertheless always happy to talk to the industry on that basis.
The strategy, together with the carbon price floor and the fact that the strategy is founded on a consultative approach, means that we can, I think, work with the industry. As the right hon. Member for Rotherham rightly says, the Treasury, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills all need to be involved, and that is the approach that we seek to take. If we had only a single Department approaching the issue from one perspective, we would be in danger of not looking at it in the round.
Jessica Morden
As part of that, has the Minister done a full impact assessment of the effect of carbon floor pricing on intensive energy users? If not, will he make a commitment to doing so?
Mr Prisk
The lead on this is not my Department; the proposal comes from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which has been looking specifically at the impact of the price across sectors. I deal with deregulation, and impact assessment has many other, often challenging, implications. We have been looking at how it impacts on the sector, what it means and, most of all, what the practical outcomes are that the industry can use to progress. That is the key point.
In conclusion, we believe that energy efficiency and business competitiveness go hand in hand. We are trying to ensure that the challenge for the environment does not become something that is done at the expense of the economy, and we are very sensitive to the fact that particular industries, whether it is steel or—as I saw for myself recently—brick making, understand the practicalities of changing processes, changing materials and the regulatory environment, and how the carbon price floor will work, so that we can help businesses move through this period and successfully decarbonise themselves and compete at the same time.
Pig Farming
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I am delighted to have secured this debate, as we have reached a critical juncture in the British pig industry. I am also particularly pleased to see the Minister in his place, as I know that he is a friend and ally of Britain’s pig farmers and has taken a lot of trouble to understand the problems faced by the industry.
We should not underestimate the size of the industry. The value of pork retail sales in the UK is about £8.7 billion, outpacing chicken, beef or lamb. This is an important industry, but I am sorry to say that it is in trouble. Just three weeks ago, pig farmers from our constituencies and across the country flocked to Westminster to draw the Government’s attention to the plight of their industry. Many MPs will have signed the 16-foot sausage in Whitehall and heard the rousing rendition of the industry anthem “Stand By Your Ham”, all in support of the cry, “Pigs are still worth it!”
I say “still worth it” because the Minister and other colleagues with long memories may recall attending the 2008 “Pigs are worth it” rally. Like this month’s rally, the 2008 gathering was a response to a sharp increase in feed costs that left the industry on the brink of collapse. After the 2008 rally, led by the much-missed standard-bearer of the “Pigs are worth it” campaign, Winnie the pig, the industry returned to profit in 2009. That breathing space allowed farmers to recoup some of their losses and take the opportunity to invest in improvements to production and infrastructure.
Despite fluctuations in profit margins, the outlook remained positive, at least for a few months, until last August, when the industry was driven into crisis once more. The fleeting period of profitability was not long or profitable enough for pig farmers to recoup the severe losses that they sustained in 2007-08.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that one problem has been our loose labelling law? Many consumers wanting to support the British pig farmer by buying British pork have not always known when they were doing so, because it is possible to package pork reared overseas as British if it is merely processed here.
Mr Bacon
My right hon. Friend is correct. He might have seen my Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill, which is scheduled for Second Reading on 1 April. Should the Government wish to take this opportunity to announce that they will give it Government time, I would be only too pleased to hand it over to officials to be steered through the House. Yesterday, I was encouraged by a phone call from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asking to see a copy. It is important to say that there has been some improvement in labelling in the pork sector, but I still believe and have always maintained that the only viable long-term answer is a mandatory regime. We already have mandatory regimes for many other foodstuffs; we should have one for pork and pork products as well.
The inexorable slide into loss-making as rising feed prices have affected the industry has begun to cripple pig farmers in this country once again. The price that pig farmers pay for feed has more than doubled since 2010. Feed costs are rising faster than during the crisis of 2008, and I am afraid that the omens for the future are not good. BPEX—the British Pig Executive, which is the industry body—estimates that feed, which is generally made up of a combination of wheat, barley and soya, remains the single largest cost for British pig producers and accounts for 77% of pig farmers’ costs, up from 60% in 2009. BPEX expects food costs to remain historically high this year, and possibly beyond.
That gloomy forecast is being borne out by recent movements on the international cereals market. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations expects a tightening of the global cereal supply this year, driven by growing demand after the slump in world cereal production in 2010. According to the FAO, export prices of major grains have risen at least 70% since February last year, and global cereal stocks are expected to fall sharply due to a decline in supplies of wheat and coarse grains. Market uncertainty after the Japanese earthquake caused prices to fall from £214 a tonne in February to £170 a tonne last week, but as of last Friday, wheat prices had climbed back to £195 a tonne. As one might imagine, recent increases in the price of pig feed have had a severe impact on the cost of pig production, which has risen to £1.64 a kilogram.
However, although production costs continue to rise, the dead-weight average pig price—the price farmers receive for the pigs they produce—has fallen during the same period. In February, the DAPP stood at £1.35 a kilogram, 29p short of covering pig farmers’ costs and 12p a kilogram below the July 2010 price of £1.47 a kilogram.
Britain’s pig farmers started 2010 in a state of cautious optimism, their hope to rebuild based on the reasonably steady costs that they faced and their improved returns in 2009, but by September 2010 the industry had returned to making a loss, and by January 2011 the cost of production had risen by one third compared with 2007. According to BPEX, a farmer sending 200 pigs to slaughter in January this year stood to lose £4,500 in a single week. The pig industry is facing overall losses of £4 million a week, and farmers are estimated to be losing more than £21 on every pig produced.
Although the rising price of feed is undoubtedly a major factor in the pain being suffered by British pig farmers, it is far from being the only factor. The pressure on Britain’s pig industry caused by rising feed prices is being amplified by what can only be described as the decoupling of the supply chain. For a supply chain to work properly, manufacturers, processors and retailers must work collaboratively to bring down its costs effectively and sustainably. However, it is clear that the pressure of high feed costs is not being shared across the pigmeat supply chain. If anything, the reverse is the case. Feed manufacturers have passed on the rise in the cost of cereals to their customers—that is, pig farmers—but the costs of rising prices have stopped with farmers and are not being passed up the supply chain to producers and retailers.
The disconnect in the pigmeat supply chain can best be illustrated by the relative performance of its constituent parts in the 12 weeks up to the end of January 2011. In that period, British pig farmers suffered losses estimated at £35 million, which equates roughly to £416,000 every calendar day. However, over the same 12-week period, the processing sector made an estimated profit of £100 million, or just over £1 million a day. Retailers, including Britain’s supermarkets, which set much store by their support for British farmers, enjoyed combined profits of £192 million from pork and pork product sales, equivalent to daily profits of £2.3 million.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On the point about retailers, particularly supermarkets, the hon. Gentleman well knows that we hope the Government will shortly introduce the proposed supermarket adjudicator Bill. Although that cannot and should not be a price-sensitive or price-setting mechanism, it will address the issue of fair dealing. Does he agree that the sooner we pass such a Bill, the sooner we can help not just pig farmers, but many other farmers and suppliers to supermarkets?
Mr Bacon
I agree. We all use supermarkets because in many ways they are efficient, but we love to hate them because they are very powerful. We are not discussing perfect competition. People sometimes speak of supermarkets as though they were speaking of the market for foreign exchange, but this is an oligopolistic arrangement. Supermarkets have large amounts of power that they do not always use in the right way, and sometimes they misuse that power. I welcome the Government’s proposals for an adjudicator.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on introducing the debate. If he will pardon the pun, this is like “Groundhog Day” for other hon. Members and for me, as we have been debating the pig industry for at least 10 years. Although I do not want to turn supermarkets into devils, it seems to me that they stand condemned in two ways. The first relates to driving down costs and forcing down farmers’ profits, and the second is the labelling itself. They are better now than they ever have been, but all too often, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) pointed out, they put the Union flag on something and it is only when one reads the small print that one realises that it is imported bacon or ham.
Mr Bacon
My hon. Friend is right. There have been some egregious examples involving some of the best known and highly admired supermarkets. Marks & Spencer, for example, was guilty of such practices, but I think that there are fewer of them now. The use of Union, English and Scottish—I was in Scotland for Christmas—flags in supermarket aisles is better and more appropriate, but we are not there yet and he is right that there is still work to do. Some supermarkets are leading the way on doing what I think would be the right thing, both for themselves in the long term and for the industry. I shall mention Morrisons in particular in a moment.
There is no doubt that supermarkets in general seem to be using their part of the supply chain to insulate themselves against the increasing costs of the production of pork and other pigmeat product, such as bacon, ham and sausages.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Is it not a shame that we import 50% of all pig products? Given that the Chancellor has just given a Budget for growth, would it not be a good idea to try to become a net exporter of pork products, particularly from Norfolk, which is where my constituency, as well as that of my hon. Friend, lies? There does not seem to be a level playing field on welfare internationally to enable us to increase our exports and decrease our imports.
Mr Bacon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there is not a level playing field. BPEX has done a lot of work on the issue and estimates that 70% of the pork imported to this country is produced under animal welfare standards that would be illegal here. In other words, 30% of what comes in meets our standards, and 70% does not.
Price promotions in supermarkets are a particular problem. Tesco ran a price promotion in January in what are called the gondola ends—the ends of the aisles—and it was very successful because of its high visibility. Such promotions can increase sales by up to 200%. If a supermarket has an uplift of 200%, not only will it want to keep the promotion going for longer, but it will need more product. I fear that, at such times, even if supermarkets such as Tesco are adhering, or say that they are adhering, to the standards for their imports, suppliers will be under pressure and will get the product from wherever they can, and the standards will not always be adhered to.
People may be familiar with the concept of stalls and tethers, which are banned in this country. Tesco wrote to me this morning pointing out that they will be banned in the European Union, but they will not—an allowance will still be made for the use of stalls and tethers, although the period will be restricted. Even so, that will not be introduced until 2013, which means that if one visits a British farm and sees a stall and tether, one will know that it is illegal, whereas if one visits a farm in other parts of the EU, one will still be able to see stalls and tethers and will then have to audit whether they are used for more than four weeks. I really do not know how that can be successfully audited. There are still big issues to resolve.
I have no doubt that the behaviour of some supermarkets has helped to suck in imports, which has had the effect of keeping the lion’s share of the profits at the customer-facing end of the supply chain, and of ramming the rising production costs on to pig farmers.
Andrew George
It would be interesting to know whether the promotional campaign to which my hon. Friend referred was effectively being funded by the suppliers themselves. I am afraid that, too often, the so-called promotional campaigns of two for the price of one are largely or mostly funded by the suppliers, not the retailers.
Mr Bacon
Of course, that is a common problem with very powerful retailers. We have seen it in the book trade—many book publishers have been driven under by that sort of practice by some book chains. We know that big factors in the marketplace mean that it is constantly dynamic—no static position, even if it holds for a while, will hold for ever—but that is another thing that the adjudicator needs to look at, because it is an exercise of market power that distorts in a way that could sometimes be thought of as anti-competitive.
Retailers have the power, if they choose to use it, to make a difference by using their stocking, labelling and pricing policies to promote the prominence of British produce and to ensure a fair return for British farmers, including British pig farmers. I pay particular tribute to Morrisons, which is the only one of the big four supermarkets to source 100% of its fresh pork from Britain. Morrisons has also committed to using British-only meat in its own-label sausages, and earlier this month the company’s chairman, Sir Ian Gibson—I am led to believe that he is no relation of the former Member for Norwich North—wrote to me about Morrisons’ backing for British farmers. He said:
“We recognise the pressure pig producers are under and will continue to be strong supporters of the sector. We are the only major supermarket to have such close control over the provenance of its meat, buying pigs directly from Britain’s farmers and processing the pork ourselves”.
He continued:
“This results in exceptional quality, freshness and value. It also enables us to offer industry-leading support to British farming. Our commitment to source 100% British fresh pork is unique among the major supermarkets and in 2011 we expect to reach the milestone of purchasing a million pigs a year from British farmers”.
That is extremely good news. Sir Ian added:
“This policy is popular with customers who we know show a preference for British produce if the price is right. Our combination of British provenance and quality at an affordable price sees us overtrade on pork—that is to say, our share of the pork market exceeds our overall market share”.
I think there is a lesson there for other supermarkets. Sir Ian continued by saying that not only are Morrisons
“major customers of British farming but we consistently pay over the market price for our pigs and we always have done. This was reflected in the results of an independent satisfaction survey of our pork farmers last year, with over 70% responding that they were happy at the price paid by Morrison”.
I salute Morrisons for backing British farmers so wholeheartedly and I wish them every success in their million pig milestone.
It would be remiss to not also mention supermarkets such as Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op, which now all source 100% of the fresh pork that they stock from British pig farmers. All of that pork displays the red tractor mark, which is an independent logo that guarantees that the food it adorns was sourced from farms and food companies that meet Britain’s high standards of food safety and hygiene, animal welfare and environmental protection.
Such support, however, is not constant throughout the retail industry. On the day before the “Pigs are still worth it!” rally, Mr Andrew Opie, food director at the British Retail Consortium, commented in a press statement entitled “Pig farmers do have retailers’ support”:
“Retailers know some consumers prefer to buy British. They’re already doing what they need to to look after their supply chain and secure a sustainable UK pig industry”.
I am afraid that that will raise a hollow laugh from many pig farmers. Mr Opie goes on:
“Supermarkets do not generally pay farmers directly for their pork.”
Well, that will be news to Sir Ian Gibson, because that is exactly what Morrisons does. Mr Opie concludes by asserting that supermarkets have no direct relationship with farmers. Unsurprisingly, the BPEX chairman, Stewart Houston, described those comments as “complete rubbish”, before adding that supermarkets
“dictate prices to processors who pass those prices directly to producers. It is a very short supply chain and they have nowhere to hide. How much money there is in the supply chain is determined by the price supermarkets pay. It is as simple as that.”
Mr Keith Simpson
Am I right in thinking that supermarkets or their agents frequently inspect farms for hygiene, health and animal welfare?
Mr Bacon
They certainly do. They inspect or employ auditors independently to inspect British farms and say—Tesco has been saying this in correspondence with me over the past few days—that they do the same in relation to their foreign supply chain. I fear, however, that, when they have promotions at the discounted end of the market, that audit trail may run out and the provenance will not always be as clear as it should be.
Hon. Members may be disturbed to hear that there is evidence to suggest that British pork products are quietly being withdrawn from the shelves of our largest supermarkets and displaced by imports. Data from Kantar Worldpanel show that, over the past three years, the volume of pork on sale in British supermarkets that does not clearly identify a specific country of origin has increased, with a spike in sales of non-British pork having been recorded recently, in the past few months of this year and late last year.
Families in my constituency and across Britain who make their living from farming pigs may find their weekly shop at the local supermarket increasingly dispiriting. In-store observation by BPEX suggests that an overall increase in pork sales is being driven by promotional sales of imported pork that does not carry a quality mark. Imported pork has replaced British pork carrying either the quality standard or the red tractor. Where major supermarkets have run promotions on pig products that are multi-buy packs or are heavily discounted on price, it is mostly imported pork. According to BPEX, just one in five pork loins promoted by Sainsbury’s two weeks ago was British, Asda’s three for £10 promotion only included imported pork, and anecdotal evidence from BPEX members suggests that Tesco’s recent in-store promotion on the so-called gondola end—end of aisle—of three pork products for £10 also featured only Danish or Dutch meat.
That is borne out by Pork Watch, the bi-monthly survey of supermarkets conducted by representatives of the National Pig Association and by Ladies in Pigs. The most recent survey found that the overall number of pork facings—the shelf space allocated to a product line—has fallen from 80% in November last year to 77% in February, which is the lowest figure for the past 12 months. Facings of the red tractor or the quality standard mark for pork—both indicators that British welfare standards have been adhered to—have also fallen slightly from 75% to 73%, after making small gains last year. It is worth taking a particularly close look at Pork Watch’s findings on Tesco: it found that facings of “British” on Tesco pork had tumbled from 73% to 59% and red tractor facings had slumped from 63% to 55%—a fall of 14 percentage points in the British category, which is the largest decline of facings of “British” on pork in any British supermarket. About half of the pork on Tesco’s shelves does not bear the red tractor, which makes it unlikely that imported pork meets the UK’s welfare standards in all cases, despite Tesco’s claim that its overseas suppliers’ standards “broadly equate” to red tractor standards.
Let us be in no doubt that the situation facing British pig farmers is extremely serious. Of course, neither retailers, individual farmers, their industry bodies nor Members of Parliament can do much to influence world commodity prices. Feed is expensive because cereals are expensive, and that looks unlikely to change in the near future.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend can help me on one point. Presumably, the story he is telling ends with pig farmers leaving the industry. If that is the case, is the situation not serious for not just pig farmers, but for agriculture and indeed rural Britain as a whole? I suggest that problem goes much further than pig farming.
Mr Bacon
It does go much further than pig farming. People are beginning to exit the industry and many are worried about whether they can expect to still be in the industry by the end of this year. My point is that if we have a stronger pig farming and farming sector, that is good for Britain, for the rural economy and for the economy as a whole, and that that is good for the Tescos of this world and their like. If the supermarkets took a longer-term view, rather than just worrying about the next three months and the next quarterly results, it would be better for them in the end. It is not an accident that Morrisons’ fresh meat sales have increased by 12% since it announced its 100% British pork policy. I urge supermarkets that are not currently doing so to take a more pro-British stance. It is incumbent on institutions—and such companies are institutions—of the like, size and power of Tesco to do more than just think about one set of shareholders; they have to think about the entire community of stakeholders, of which they form such a powerful part.
Let me give an example. Tesco states on its website that it supports British farmers, and hon. Members will have probably seen the signs as they go into Tesco showing that it is the biggest customer of British agriculture. On its website, it identifies 27 farmers whom it supports: five produce apples and pears, five produce cheese, nine produce either beef or lamb or a combination of the two, one produces watercress, one produces rapeseed oil and one produces milk. There is not a single pig farmer among the 27.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explain why the economics mean that Morrisons can make a profit by sourcing 100% British pork when Tesco and the other superstores he has mentioned cannot? What is the economic reason he has divined for that?
Mr Bacon
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point because one might think that if everybody could do it, they would. My point is they can do it and they should. The economic case is that when customers see that supermarkets, such as Morrisons, are backing British farmers and backing Britain, they are disproportionately likely to go and shop in those shops and buy those products. They want to see that the supermarket that they endorse by their shopping decisions—it is their spending the money in their pocket that means a supermarket is profitable—is also helping to back our community, back Britain and back British farmers. When people see that, they respond. That has an economic effect of its own, which is why Morrisons’ policy has proved to be so successful. Other supermarkets should follow suit.
The even broader point is that, even if the effects were cost-neutral in the long term—I do not believe for one moment that they are—the supermarkets should recognise that they are British supermarkets and they are succeeding only because we have allowed the planning permissions to go through, sometimes against people’s better judgment, and enabled them to have those locations. It is because we go into those supermarkets and spend our money that they are able to make such profits. I come back to the question: what kind of market are we talking about? We are not talking about the market for foreign exchange; we are talking about enormously powerful players, and with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I am asking the supermarkets to exercise that responsibility in a more measured way in the interests of this country. I do not want to rant even more on that point, so I shall stop there.
It is certainly true that some British supermarkets can and do support British pig farmers, but only one of the big four sources 100% of its pork in Britain. That is not good enough. In addition, the biggest of the big four also seems to be slowly turning its back on British farmers, offering cheap imports in the misguided belief—promoted by the British Retail Consortium but disproved by Morrisons—that British shoppers do not care where the meat comes from as long as the price is right. Retailers will no doubt respond that they have to meet the variable demand of their customers and that in the current economic climate price has to be a factor. However, I question how much of the instability in the pigmeat supply chain is due to fluctuations in customer demand on price and how much is caused by the internal operations of the supply chain which, as I have set out, is entirely skewed in favour of retailers.
This is not simply a case of backing our heroic pig farmers against the evil supermarkets because, as we have heard, some of our supermarkets are trying to do the right thing. Of course it would be foolish to state that shoppers will buy British whatever the price, but we also know that it is possible to offer consumers British food at high standards of quality and animal welfare all at an affordable price. Morrisons have shown that that is possible and, if the producers can get a fair price for their pigs, we will have the best of all possible worlds.
When feed prices peaked in 2008, it took six months for prices to fall back to a sustainable level, during which time many pig farmers had left the industry. Today, three quarters of the remaining farmers say that they too will get out of the pig business if things do not improve within the next 12 months. That would be a tragedy for not only pig farmers, but processors, retailers and consumers. British consumers want to buy British produce because they want to support British farmers and they believe that it is the best. I have not wavered in my belief that a mandatory country of origin labelling regime, combined with the widest possible support for the red tractor and quality standard marks, will give shoppers the information they need.
The Minister acknowledged in the House last week that the pig industry receives no subsidies. That is quite correct and I am certainly not calling for that to change. However, if the Government value having a British pig industry that sets the highest standards for quality and animal welfare, they cannot simply shrug and believe themselves to be powerless in the face of global food prices and grocery behemoths. The Government must encourage the pigmeat supply chain to work as it should, so that pig farmers can make a living, not a loss. Pigs were worth it in 2008. They are still worth it today.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing the debate. I hope he will not mind if I take his name in vain. Pigmeat is really important to this country and, dare I say it, there is never a better way to start the day than with a cup of tea and a bacon sandwich. I can hear people salivating around me as I mention that. The state of the industry has already been well described, and there have been numerous interventions from hon. Members about some of the points that I will try to present in a slightly different way in my speech. There is no doubt, however, that the industry needs some action from the Government. I will ask for clarity on actions that are already under way, and make some suggestions about the future.
In 1998, this country was 80% self-sufficient in producing enough pigmeat for our needs. This year we are at 48%, for reasons that have already been referred to: aspects of the animal welfare standards; the stall and tether and castration bans; and the dumping of cheap meat on our market, especially when we had the German dioxin feed scare. The current value chain has been well documented. I received my figures from one of my local farmers, Jimmy Butler of Blythburgh Pork, who has approximately 18,000 pigs at any one time, all of which are free range and very tasty. I had better not promote any more producers. He told me that farmers effectively end up losing £20 per pig. From the figures he gave me, the farming industry loses £4 million per week, while processors make £8 million, and retailers make £16 million, profit per week. There are various causes. We have already heard that the pricing that cannot be agreed with supermarkets, but there is also an issue about the price of feedstock. I appreciate that the Government cannot control that particular aspect of the input, but they can do something about the output prices in their proposed legislation for groceries and the inclusion of a draft adjudicator code for supermarkets. There is also the issue of welfare standards.
Mr Knight
My hon. Friend has introduced an important issue to the debate—the dioxin scare in Germany, which has caused a fall-off in demand for pork in that country. Is there a sign of hope in the fact that the lack of demand for pork in Germany is likely to be a very short-lived phenomenon, and will hopefully lead to prices being a little more buoyant in future than they have been this year?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope that that will be the case and, going even further, that our British farmers will be able to exploit an export opportunity. It would be interesting to see Germans eating British sausages, rather than their own bratwurst, but why not? We have won on other fronts in Germany in the last century and I am sure that our pig farmers would be proud to go in and make sure that an English wurst—
Dr Coffey
Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was not referring to anything else.
We should be proud of the welfare standards that we enjoy in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is right that some of the regulations have been partly changed, and the task of bringing welfare standards up to those enjoyed in the United Kingdom will be completed by 2013. I call on the Government to ensure that they use all possible influence to make sure that that date is not delayed in any way. We have already heard other examples of derogations that have been extended. It is critical for our industry, and just as important for the welfare of the animals that are farmed, that we do not delay.
What can we do? The industry is innovative. We have heard about Ladies in Pigs, with its lip-smacking recipes and demonstrations around the country. The industry is good at talking about consumer choice and education. We can continue to advertise the fact that 45% of pig herds in this country are reared outdoors, whereas in the rest of Europe it barely reaches 5%. Such things are important, and they are one reason why British pork is rightly a premium product. I wonder whether it is appropriate to bring in the following point, and I do not know if the pig industry has ever done this. I have received a number of letters from constituents who are concerned about halal labelling on other forms of meat. Regularly, meat is presented—one might buy chicken or something similar—as having been prepared to halal standards. I think I am right in saying that halal is irrelevant when it comes to pork, bacon and so on. Therefore, if people want to be confident that they are not eating meat that has been prepared in a halal way—or indeed in a kosher way—then eating a pigmeat product would be one particular avenue for them to pursue.
We should also make sure that the industry of butchers continues to recommend itself to consumers. I think that we all regret the loss of any high street butcher from our constituencies, and I am proud that we have so many—do not worry, Mr Bayley, I will not be naming them all, or any. Butchers provide a professional insight for consumers and help with choice. I hope that they will be encouraged by the information in the Budget today on small business rate relief. There will be significant reductions for properties with rateable values of less than £12,000—an example of the Government supporting high street shops, including butchers, to ensure that they can continue to sell good British pork and other pig products.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said that we are not calling for a subsidy. I completely agree with that, and I do not believe that the industry is calling for it either. However, the Government could make sure that they take advantage of my hon. Friend’s excellent Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill. We were very strong on that issue before the election and I am very keen to see that we make good progress. That would not cost money, it is free to do, and it would have a dramatic effect on consumer education, as the consumer would know that the products that they buy that sport the British flag were raised and reared here and conform to UK welfare standards. It might also be worth trying to pull together all the different legislation on UK food labelling and having a more simplified process. My hon. Friend’s Bill might be a good avenue for doing so.
It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the position on Government buying standards for food, which were due to come into effect this month. I understand that that is not a buy-British campaign, but it is supposed to ensure that a high quality standard of food is purchased by Government. I look forward to clarification on that.
Another slightly controversial question concerns feedstock. Pigswill was banned as a source of food for animals, which was understandable at the time. I am not suggesting that all pig farmers want pigswill to return, especially those at the premium end, but have the Government considered reviewing that policy as a way of trying to reduce the input costs for our farmers? Will the Minister also clarify what the UK pigmeat supply chain task force is doing, as well as the EU advisory group on pigmeat? I only learned about that group yesterday through a response to a question about pigs in the House of Lords. It is good to see that the other place takes an interest in this issue too. I appreciate that the Government cannot just go out and tell people to buy pigmeat, but there is a lot that they can do to ensure that the product that we are proud to see on our shelves, when carrying a British label, is deemed to have been produced to the same welfare standards anywhere in this country. I look forward to the action of a great friend of farming—the Minister.
Finally, I must apologise for forgetting to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk on securing this debate. I hope that it will not be groundhog day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) suggested, but all I can say is that, with the friends of the farming industry who are present in the Chamber today, the Minister will know that we will not give up.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing the debate, which is very important not just for us in East Anglia, but for many rural communities all over the country. Pig farming and farming in general have suffered in the past few years. Although it is important that we have a comprehensive debate about pig farming, it also helps us to raise a number of issues that are important to the wider farming sector.
One of my first engagements as a new MP last year was a visit to Stuston farm in my constituency, where I was introduced to a new breed of pig—the mangalitsa pig— which has just come into the United Kingdom; that was a great pleasure. Today’s debate is about the future of pig farming, which is one of the most important parts of agriculture in East Anglia, particularly in Suffolk and Norfolk. I am therefore delighted that we have replying to today’s debate a great friend of East Anglia, Suffolk and my constituency. The Minister knows the issues better than many and I am sure that he will do all he can to help us resolve them.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk talked about a number of important issues, including the fact that the pig industry slid back into loss making in 2010, its problems exacerbated by the rise in wheat prices and the fact that retailers are not passing on their profits to pig producers. According to the National Farmers Union, over the past three years pig producers have been losing £20 a pig, whereas retailers have continued to make a profit of £100 a pig. That is unacceptable. Retailers should show more corporate responsibility in supporting British food producers.
Of course, the increasing cost of fuel will further exacerbate the problems in the pig industry, so we were pleased to hear in today’s Budget statement about the fuel stabiliser, which will help many farmers. Another important problem is the difficulties in many parts of the country with getting planning permission for local abattoirs, so that we can reduce food miles. I am delighted that we finally have in East Anglia, in my constituency, an abattoir. Local pigs can now be slaughtered locally, which is a very good thing.
We have talked about broader questions of Britain’s food sustainability and the importance of supporting a profitable and sustainable agricultural sector to improve that. In the past decade or so, the amount of food consumed in Britain that is produced here has fallen quite dramatically: we now produce only about 40% of the food that we eat. With climate change already affecting many major agricultural producers such as Australia, where extreme temperatures could undermine a major world supplier of wheat, it is all the more important that we promote food sustainability and support British pig farmers as a means of doing that. I am pleased that that matter has already been raised: the Minister talked about it in response to parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), who touched on it in the context of supporting our armed forces. It is important that we make sure that Britain can feed itself and that we have proper food security and food sustainability for the future.
One important point that has been teased out in the debate is that British pig producers have much higher standards of traceability and animal welfare than many of their overseas competitors, but they are not competing on a level playing field in the supermarkets where they sell their goods. An important related point is that 30% of imported pork does not meet UK standards of animal welfare, but it is still sold in our supermarkets.
Dr Poulter
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, which makes the point even more forcefully. As he says, only 30% of imported pork in our supermarkets meets UK standards, according to BPEX. We need action from the Government to put the onus on supermarkets to show greater corporate responsibility and to provide a more level playing field for British food producers and the goods they sell.
Simon Hart
The Minister might be able to comment on the appropriateness and legality of using the planning system to impose such conditions on supermarkets.
Dr Poulter
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I look forward to the Minister covering that that in his concluding remarks.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the need for a level playing field. Pig farmers in my constituency are not asking to be given any artificial support; they are asking to compete on a level basis. They go to other countries and see farmers putting in new sow stalls when they themselves spent hundreds of thousands of pounds per unit replacing their stalls 10 years ago, and they are rightly upset. Does my hon. Friend agree that other countries should not be allowed a derogation in due course? If our farmers have had to make that investment, so should farmers elsewhere and they should not be allowed to import their meat into this country unless they follow the same rules.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes the point very powerfully. The fact is that there is not a level playing field, particularly in the European Union. Stricter EU animal welfare laws for pigs have been agreed, but they will come fully into force only in 2013. As he forcefully argues, we need those standards to be applied in Europe. However, it is not just a question of standards being applied universally; our supermarkets must also show corporate responsibility. If overseas food producers do not produce food to the same high standards of animal welfare and traceability as British farmers, our supermarkets should not buy food from them. We need to see that corporate responsibility from the industry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I represent an area in Northern Ireland where almost everyone used to keep pigs, sometimes in large numbers. We are now down to only one producer, albeit a big one, which indicates that we are hearing the death knell of the pig industry. In some parts of Europe, regulation is non-existent, so does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Minister needs to convey to European Ministers and to Brussels the fact that whereas regulation is enforced with almost evangelical zeal in parts of the United Kingdom, the same is not true in other parts of Europe?
Dr Poulter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that forceful intervention, and I absolutely agree with him. British pig farmers have struggled a great deal over the past few years, and it is a great pity that the number of people farming pigs has consistently declined throughout the UK. We would like that to be put right and we would like to see greater support for pig farmers. He is right to mention the EU, because over the past decade or so Whitehall has been fond of gold-plating and platinum-plating European legislation, whereas countries that do not like the legislation tend to ignore it. He is absolutely right to say that we need to seek consistency across the EU, and that needs to be taken up at a European level. We want a level playing field so that our farmers can have a thriving and prosperous future.
I do not want to detain colleagues much longer, because we want to hear from the Minister. We have talked much about honest food labelling, which applies across the farming sector, but particularly to British pork. At the moment, bacon only has to be sliced in the UK to be labelled British, which is unacceptable. UK law requires that labelling should not be misleading, which is a good thing, but it does not define how much British involvement is required before produce can be counted as British. Traditionally, slaughtering animals in this country would count, so calling something British lamb or British pork could mean that although the meat was imported, slaughter and packaging took place in the UK, but now meat need only be sliced here to be labelled British. That can be misleading in supermarkets. We want stronger action on labelling, and I am sure that the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk will go a good way towards countering that great problem, which would also help to support British pig farmers.
We have talked a lot about getting greater corporate responsibility from our retailers. I mentioned the fact that while pig farmers have been losing £20 per pig over the past three years, our retailers have been making profits of £100 to £120 per pig. Surely there must be an onus on those retailers not only to support honest food labelling and promote the fact that British farmers produce pork to higher animal welfare standards and with greater traceability, but to want to support local and British produce. That has to be a good thing. As we know from the example of Morrisons, cited by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, consumers want to buy British and support local food producers. Consumers in East Anglia, Suffolk and Norfolk want to support our local food producers. That would be a good thing for supermarkets to do.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I could not resist attending the debate, if only for a few minutes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one consequence of the pricing system used by supermarkets is that pig production in this country is driven down and more pigs are produced in sub-standard conditions in other countries? That is a serious problem.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is right. The key point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) raised, is the need for a level playing field. We are proud that Britain has high animal welfare and traceability standards, but if our farmers are not competing on a level playing field with farmers in Europe and overseas, with 70% of overseas pork not being produced to the same high animal welfare standards, that is wrong. There is an onus on our supermarkets to show greater corporate responsibility and to make a stand by supporting local food producers and ensuring that they help their customers to understand the issues. I hope that we will hear strong words of support on that from the Minister.
We have talked today about the importance of backing British pig farmers, because we believe in backing British food sustainability and security. We have talked about the fact that there should be a level playing field for British farmers and pork producers, with their high animal welfare and traceability standards compared with the standards of their European competitors. We have talked about the need for honest food labelling, which we will discuss further in the main Chamber in the near future. The Minister is a great friend of farming and we look forward to his reply to the debate and to him telling us how he and the Government will support the British pig industry.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I want to call the Front-Bench spokesmen to start the winding-up speeches at half-past 3, which leaves us time for one further speech.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Bayley, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for securing this opportune debate.
I want to concentrate first on the profitability of the pig sector. It is obvious that pig farmers cannot go on losing £20 per pig—something needs to be done. At other times when pig farmers lost money due to high cereal prices, cereal prices subsequently fell, so pig farmers could bridge the gap and the profitability of pigs returned. This time, we cannot guarantee that the peak in cereal prices will be here for only a short while; it may be here for quite a lot longer. It is always difficult to predict a market while thinking on your feet.
We must say clearly to the supermarkets that it does no good to drive pig farmers out of business, which is what they are doing. It is very short-sighted and has a knock-on effect on the cereal producer, because we produce a lot of barley and wheat for feed that goes to the pig and poultry sectors.
As many hon. Members have said, the pig industry is unsubsidised. It does not get any single farm payments, and pig farmers have to make their money back from the marketplace. We have to help them to do so through the grocery adjudicator and others. Hon. Members also talked about labelling, and although the “British” label is not always easy to get, there are regional labels, which have legal standing and are easier to maintain. When I was in the European Parliament, the French, and particularly the Italians, seemed to manage to label everything with a region and, largely, get away with it. We have to be keen on this.
Back in the ’90s, we introduced extra welfare standards for pig farming. Why did we bring those in? Because our people are very keen on animal welfare, but, to put it bluntly, if they are keen on animal welfare, they should put their money where their mouth is. Clearly, higher standards make costs higher, so we must ensure that produce is properly labelled in supermarkets so that consumers know what they are buying and are able to buy a British product.
Our main competitors in the pig industry are the Danes, probably closely followed by the Germans, and they are using sow stalls and tethers to this day. I remember trying to table an amendment to get them banned in Denmark by 2004, but the Danes are getting away with it until 2012. The Minister is a friend to farming, and I know that he will fight our corner very hard to ensure that there is no extension. This has gone on for far too many years and driven far too many pig farmers out of business.
Pig farmers do not want to join the subsidy junket. One or two might, but generally they want a fair price for their pigmeat. I have been to many local producers in my constituency to see the farrowing and the outdoor pig systems. We have some of the best, if not the best, pig systems in the world, but that costs more money. We have all made this plea to the Minister: let us look at this matter every way we can. Let us help pig farmers to brand their produce with a local label—Devon meat, of course, is better than any, but perhaps Norfolk meat is nearly as good—and to market it so we can get an increase in price. We give Morrisons top marks, but other supermarkets have lower grades, so let us say to the supermarkets that they cannot go on making pig farmers produce pork at a loss, because the pork will not be there. Once pork in the rest of Europe has decreased—the German situation—and production has fallen, there will not be this vast amount of pork sloshing about in the European market. What the supermarkets are doing is all very short-sighted.
We should look at ways that Government can help, but this is also about the power of the consumer. We must get the message over to consumers that they must go into the supermarkets, look at the label and ensure that the Union Jack is not just for processing, but that the pork was reared, slaughtered and processed in the UK. That someone can still put a Union Jack on a label just for processing is a problem. Often, people will pick that product up as though it is a genuine British product.
I welcome the debate. The number of Members present this afternoon, even with the Budget debate going on, shows how important we feel the topic is. I also welcome the presence of the Minister and the shadow Minister.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Bayley. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this important debate, which is also timely, given the number of pig farmers who recently attended the House and put their points on the future of the British pig industry very forcefully.
I commend the contributions made by the hon. Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who expressed their concerns, but also their hopes for the expansion of the industry. They were united in their call for reform of the supply chain, which I shall address later.
The number of pigs in the UK declined from 7.9 million in 1996-98 to around 4.7 million in 2009, although numbers have stabilised since, and world pork production has increased in recent years after pauses in growth earlier in the decade. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that global production reached 106.5 million tonnes in 2009, and 108.5 million tonnes in 2010. Pork accounted for 37.8% of global meat production in 2010, and pork production is rising in the Asia-Pacific region, but falling in Latin America.
From 2005 until 2010, the European Union exported more pork than any other region or trading bloc, but the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute has established that EU exports fell by 19% in 2009, and it forecasts a progressive loss in EU global market share, which is partly accounted for by the differentials in animal welfare treatment. It identifies Brazil and the United States as areas with a quickly expanding global pork market share.
That raises the question whether the EU, in negotiating to complete the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation trade talks, ought to consider trying to level up environmental and animal welfare commitments and guarantees across the world, given the competition that the European pig industry faces from Brazil, the US and other regions. That is an important point.
In this country, the pig industry has made real efforts on reform—for example, greater use of anaerobic digestion to cut down on food waste—and has operated to the highest level of animal welfare, but, as hon. Members have pointed out, food labelling and supply chain problems are placing our farmers in increasing financial difficulties. The previous Government set up a taskforce on the pigmeat supply chain, which produced a code of practice on labelling pork and pork products. It was based on the best practice available from the Food Standards Agency and had the support of the industry.
On research and development, the taskforce sought to extend new systems for surveillance and epidemiology, IT systems for integrating health schemes, slaughterhouse surveillance and quality assurance schemes, and schemes for reducing waste and emissions to the environment from the supply chain. There may be many measures in the Budget that I will not be able to support— [Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members will not be too surprised by that.
Mr Bain
Shocked, even—dismayed, perhaps. However, I hope that pig producers, and indeed BPEX, will take up one of the welcome measures in today’s Budget: the expansion of small business relief for research and development. That has the potential to improve the competitiveness of the British pig industry.
The Opposition call on the Government to act in three areas. The first is ensuring that the cross-EU enforcement of directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC on banning close confinement sow stalls takes effect on 1 January 2013, as scheduled. I am aware that the Government are supporting an intra-EU ban on the sale of eggs from countries that do not introduce the new provisions on egg-laying hens from 1 January 2012. Will they adopt the same position in respect of any breach of the directives on pig welfare standards by any member state? I hope that the Minister addresses that point in his winding-up speech.
Secondly, on food labelling, we call on the Government vigorously to support country of origin labelling in their discussions at the Council of the European Union, as alluded to in the coalition Government agreement.
Mr Graham Stuart
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, from the rural idyll that is his seat, will be able to answer this question. He said that he wants the Government vigorously to act on food labelling. Why was so little done during the 13 years of the previous Administration, although I know he was here for only a little while during that time?
Mr Bain
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I remind him, as I did the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) during a debate on the Sustainable Livestock Bill some months ago, that there are three arable farms at the very top of my constituency. I am hoping to visit them during the Easter recess. Indeed, I have had a good discussion with the National Farmers Union Scotland on a range of issues in the past few weeks.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) raises an interesting point. We can bat around what did or did not happen during the past 13 years, but what will certainly be most effective is cross-EU standards in this area. He knows that the food labelling directive is before the European Parliament, and that it may have a Second Reading by early summer. We should focus our efforts and show unity across the House on getting decent standards that will protect the pig industry and other parts of our arable and livestock farming industries.
I want to address the anomaly that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich pointed out—that is, food that is processed in the UK can be labelled as produced in this country. We need reform and clarity across the EU through regulations to deal with that issue.
The third area in which we seek Government action is in respect of a plan for the food industry. The previous Government commissioned the report “Food Matters”, under the auspices of the Cabinet Office, and the study “Food 2030”, under the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but circumstances have moved on. The Foresight report sets out new challenges for better use of water and soil. It also sets the global challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050, but with potentially fewer resources—increasing food production by 50%, but in a sustainable way.
To meet the challenges of sustainable food production, which the pig industry will be involved with, and to show that we can meet our climate change reduction commitments, the Opposition and the NFU call on the Government to adopt a proper plan for food, which should include the pig industry. If there is to be a plan for growth arising from today’s Budget, the UK’s largest manufacturing industry—namely, agriculture—cannot be left out. The plan should contain strong proposals for a groceries code adjudicator with the statutory power to tackle unfairness and inequity wherever they are found throughout food supply chains. As hon. Members have pointed out, such an ironing out and levelling of the market would be enormously beneficial to our pigmeat producers.
Jim Shannon
One of the subjects that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned—perhaps he is about to do so—is the supermarket ombudsman, for whom I think there is a role. There is a margin between the £16 million per week profit made by shops and the £8 million per week that the pig producer gets. Is there a method whereby the supermarket ombudsman could bring those figures closer together, thereby keeping pig farmers in production?
Mr Bain
It is precisely that ability to take steps to iron out market inequalities that we are calling for. The previous Government called the institution a supermarket ombudsman; the new Government call it the groceries code adjudicator. What matters is the powers that it will have, and we look forward to the draft Bill that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills promised to publish by Easter to see how rigorous it will be in helping the sector and the dairy sector as well.
Hon. Members have alluded to the fact that the British pig industry needs not a handout, but a hand up. With the combination of an increase in research and development, a strong groceries code adjudicator, better and stronger EU food labelling rules, fairer supply chains and reform of the WTO animal welfare rules, we can collectively ensure a brighter future for our pig farmers, which is what they want and deserve.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Bayley. I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). During his time here, he has been a stalwart supporter of the pig industry, and I am sure that that is not because of his name. His Bill, to which I shall return, is being presented to the House for the fourth time, which shows his determination. I have attended innumerable breakfast and other meetings that he has hosted on the pig industry, and it is fortunate to have someone who is so determined to support it and the pig producers in his constituency.
On one occasion, most of the Suffolk and Norfolk MPs were in the Chamber, which demonstrated not just the importance of the concentration of the pig industry in those two counties—[Interruption.] My colleagues from east Yorkshire also joined us. Those are the main pig producing parts of the UK, and the fact that so many hon. Members decided to attend demonstrates the importance of the pig industry to them, and it reflects the lobbying that has taken place. As a former pig producer in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), I entirely understand its importance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk rightly said, the industry is vital. He said that its total value is £8.7 billion, which is a significant sum in the retail sector. Others hon. Members have referred to the collapse of the pig herd since the mid-1990s. It is impossible to say precisely how much of that is attributable to the unilateral ban on stalls and tethers that we introduced, but it is obviously a significant part.
One of the changes over 20, 30 or 40 years has been rationalisation into specialist pig units. Years ago, pigs were one unit on a generalised farm, and a rise in grain prices had less impact, because farmers were feeding their own grain to their pigs, so they lost on one side and gained on the other. Now, more and more farmers are specialist pig producers, and must buy all their feed, so they can only lose from rising grain prices.
I shall try to address some of the issues that have arisen during the debate. My hon. Friends will be aware that there has always been pig a cycle. Pigs have a relatively short gestation and growth period, so the rise or fall in supply is a reasonably short-term phenomenon. They were always muck or money as supply and demand fluctuated slightly, but the level of fluctuation has become much worse, and the £20 a pig loss to which several of my hon. Friends referred reveals a dramatic downside of the cycle. It is unfortunate that the cycle was already beginning to drop off when feed prices were hiked up because of the grain price. That exacerbated the problem, but we are there, and the situation is horrendous.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk referred to some of the costs that our producers incur. Stalls and tethers were first phased out in the early 1990s, and were banned completely by 1999. Tethers were banned in the rest of Europe in 2006, and stalls will be banned by 2013, although, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, it will be permissible to keep sows in stalls for up to four weeks after service, and that brings me to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). I assure him that the Government are absolutely opposed to any extension or derogation. As with battery cages for chickens, countries have known for a long time that the change was coming, and farmers have no excuse for not making the transition.
The hon. Gentleman asked me quite rightly about enforcement, and the fact that farmers will be allowed to have stalls on their farm in which to keep sows for four weeks will create a big challenge. Responsibility for enforcement will rest with the competent authority—usually the Department of Agriculture in member states—and I recognise the issue. We must keep pressing the Commission to ensure proper enforcement, because that is a worrying loophole.
Mr Graham Stuart
Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have consistently made the case that there should be no derogation after 2013, and whether he has any idea of when the Commission might publish details on enforcement? The earlier we see the proposed enforcement mechanisms, the more we will be able to influence them before they are introduced, when they will be harder to change.
Mr Paice
The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is that we constantly tell the Commission that when a rule is introduced, every country should comply with it, and that there should be no derogations. He is right in saying that we have not seen any proposals for enforcement, and I am not aware that we have seen any assessment of what stage other countries are at. There were efforts to do that with conventional battery cages, but there were difficulties. The matter is important, and I will chase it up to see whether there has been any assessment of what other countries have done. To be fair, we know that many countries with a significant number of pig farmers, such as Denmark, which is a major pig producing country, have converted, but I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely what the proportions are and how many remain to convert.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East challenged me on whether we would support an intra-EU ban on those countries that have not introduced the measure. I shall be completely honest, as I always try to be. We have not considered that yet, but he makes a valid point. I made the point about eggs, and there is no logical reason why we should not do the same for pigmeat. However, we want everyone to convert, and until we see some sort of assessment, we cannot speculate too much, but I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I have just been passed a note saying that no official information is available about how far EU countries have moved towards complying with the directive. Denmark and the Netherlands have said that they will comply, but the situation in some other countries is different and vaguer. There are different rules on castration and tail-docking in different countries, and there is a competitiveness issue. Some hon. Members referred to supermarket specifications and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, claims by Tesco and others about their supply sources. It is reasonable and acceptable, of course, for retailers to ensure that their supply chains comply with British standards, and it is not in the Government’s gift to check whether they do. There is no doubt that tail-docking and castration rules are different in other countries, and it is only right and proper that they should insist on the same standards. I shall return to the supermarket issue.
That leads me to my last point on welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) referred to pigs being kept outdoors. Anyone who drives through Suffolk and South Norfolk will see that tens of thousands of sows are kept outdoors, even through the recent winter and the snow before Christmas. There is no doubt that keeping pigs outdoors is more expensive in production costs. Productivity is lower, there are not so many pigs a year from the sows, and growth rates are slightly affected. Those systems are being adopted because the drive for better welfare from retailers has pushed them that way, but higher management standards are required and farmers do not receive the price for their pigs that that higher standard demands.
I was with a group of Agriculture Ministers in Belgium before Christmas, and we were taken to a modern, highly efficient Belgian pig farm operated in totally enclosed buildings, where the hygiene must have been incredible, as there was no disease. Nevertheless, there were just spartan, bare shelves with a few rubber balls hanging on chains for the pigs to play with. Those pigs compete with our pigs, which are reared outdoors. Apparently, British consumers prefer pigs that have been reared outdoors, but they are not always told about it.
My hon. Friends referred to the overall issue of supply, and to dioxins, which was a problem from Germany that we had in January. The Commission introduced a private purchase scheme for a short space of time, and some pigmeat was taken off the market, which helped for a while. What concerned me was the allegation—I say only that—that certain supermarkets were dropping their British suppliers because the European mainland market was awash with cheap pigmeat as a result of the dioxin scare. To me, that undermines the claims made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk about supermarkets looking after our sector.
Mr Bacon
As the Minister said, it is not in the Government’s gift to check whether claims made by supermarkets about animal welfare standards are adhered to by overseas producers whose products the supermarkets import. Even if the Government cannot do that, however, does the Minister agree that there is an interest on the part of consumers and of Government in knowing whether such claims are true?
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is right and we stand four-square behind the assertion that it is important that the consumer be properly informed about what is available for sale. There should be an effective traceability chain that can verify the claims made on the label.
At this point, I should probably discuss the issue of labelling. I welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill, but he knows as well as I do that there are question marks—to say the least—about the legality of the UK legislating alone on food labelling. There is good news, however, and since we came to office, two things have happened. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East made a point about the pigmeat supply chain taskforce and the code agreed with the industry. That happened before we took office, and I am the first to recognise that. Since we took office, a bigger agreement on all meat has taken place between the supermarkets, the meat trade, the catering and hospitality trades and the producers, resulting in a much broader voluntary code of practice concerning country of origin labelling. That is the key issue. That code is now in place, and we are currently doing an evaluation exercise to baseline it so that we can measure progress in the future.
Alongside that, there are negotiations on the EU food information regulation. Since taking office, we have toughened up the UK’s approach to support the idea of mandatory labelling for meat and meat products, and that is what the regulation currently requires. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk says, there is a long way to go and I do not want to forecast the outcome. At the moment, however, the food information regulation would achieve what he seeks with his Bill, except that it would apply not only in the UK but across the EU. That is the best way forward, and potentially that is encouraging news.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) asked about regional labels. There is nothing to stop anybody from marketing and using regional labels, and we strongly support protected name indicators—PNIs—in principle. The two examples I give will not make or break the pig industry, but Gloucester Old Spot pigmeat, and more recently Cumberland sausages, both in the pigmeat world, have been approved for that status. PNIs are a marketing tool, but like any other form of marketing they are effective only if the labelling is honest about the country of origin where the pig was born, reared and slaughtered. That is the point about labelling espoused by my hon. Friend.
Mr Bacon
Does the Minister agree that the most important thing about labelling, including mandatory labelling, is to stamp on the canard that giving full, accurate information to consumers somehow distorts the market, because consumers might act on that information? The only possible consequence of accurate food labelling is to assist the clear operation of market preferences.
Mr Paice
I entirely agree. We are constantly told by retailers, “We are doing what the consumer demands.” Well, let the consumer demand, but make sure that they are properly informed so that we know that the demand is genuine. There is no reason for anybody, whether producer or retailer, to be afraid of the consumer, and we should not be afraid of consumers being properly informed.
I will touch on the two final issues raised by hon. Members. First, the coalition Government are committed to introducing Government buying standards, and we are on schedule to do so. Some parts of that relate to food but concern health, rather than the DEFRA rules on food, so I will concentrate on pigmeat. Our clear objective is that we should spend taxpayers’ money only on food that has been produced to British standards, as long as it does not cost any more—there are plenty of examples and pieces of casework to demonstrate that it will not cost more. That is only right and fair, and it means using farm assurance schemes as benchmarks to ensure that it takes place. That objective is on schedule.
My final point, on which I have been challenged, concerns the adjudicator. That is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and it is clear that the Department is determined to go forward with it. I was asked about its role, and the adjudicator will investigate complaints from anyone in the supply chain who has been affected, either directly or indirectly, by what they believe to be a breach of the code. Furthermore, the issue can be dealt with anonymously. Those are the two big issues that we will see when the legislation is published.
Finally, let me turn to the wider issue of supermarkets. I must resist the temptation to identify individual supermarkets and say what each is doing, because I do not have full knowledge of that. Morrisons is distinct, because it has its own abattoirs, unlike any other supermarket. That is why it buys pigs from the farmer as opposed to from a processer, as other supermarkets do. Usually, however, supermarkets are closely involved in sourcing their meat.
I entirely share the general thrust of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, and those of everybody else who has spoken. If supermarkets and retailers believe that future consumers will want to buy British pigmeat, they have a responsibility to ensure the supply of British pigmeat for the future, and that lies behind the adjudicator and the code. The Competition Commission’s conclusions were not about farmers but about consumers. It was concerned that retailers were shifting too much risk on to the supply side, and that in future the consumer might lose because the supply side was constrained. Therefore, it is in the interests of the consumer to ensure a supply of British pigmeat for the future. I share the view held by my hon. Friends that although no one pretends that there is a single solution to the challenges we face, supermarkets have a big role to play. To be fair, it is not only Morrisons that takes the more responsible line to which my hon. Friend referred.
I am grateful for the compliments that I have received from hon. Friends about my feelings on this matter, but that is not really important. What matters is what the Government do, and we have made a pledge on the adjudicator and are making dramatic progress on the labelling front and on Government buying standards. We have dealt with the issue of potential GM contamination of imports, and we are determined to do everything we can in an industry that, as others have said, is unsubsidised and vitally important. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate.
Rural Broadband
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
This is a very oversubscribed subject, and we have only a short time. I am keen for all hon. Members present to intervene. Some 15 hon. Members have been in touch with me about that. I ask them to give me three or four minutes to get under way and then I will try to bring everyone in.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister very much. He came up to Nenthead in my constituency on what was a hairy day over the top of the Alston fell. He saw us install the new broadband network and launched our conference. In general, this is a very positive story. It is the beginning of a new story, but a very positive one. I thank also all the MPs here today. Incredible work is being done constituency by constituency. If there is a broader constitutional lesson from all this, it is about the role of Members of Parliament in driving forward superfast broadband.
I say a huge thank you also to the officials. We have had incredible support from Anton Draper in the Department for Communities and Local Government, from Mike Kiely and Robert Sullivan in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, from Alan Cook at Cumbria county council and from communities themselves. This is above all a story about community pressure and Government responding to it. Within the confines of Cumbria, there has been huge pressure from a diverse range of communities. The people and places include Libby Bateman from Kirkby Stephen, Miles Mandelson, who has constructed one of the most exciting superfast networks imaginable in Great Asby, Leith-Lyvennet Broadband and Northern Fells Broadband. They have all been pushing ahead on this issue.
There is a huge need, which I am sure all hon. Members will speak to, particularly for rural areas—for our economies above all. Isolation cripples our economies. As a group of MPs, we tend to have in our constituencies far more self-employed people than any other constituencies in Britain and far more people working from home. Broadband is essential for that, but also for public services such as health and education. It allows my neighbour with Parkinson’s disease, instead of making a four and a half hour round trip to Newcastle general hospital, to have a live video link to the consultant without leaving home. The same is true of distance education and learning.
The challenges, which again are not things I need to talk about at length today, are challenges of topography, scarce population and the amazing shifting sands of technology. Every time I talk to the Minister, a new person has emerged with a new and astonishing solution. I am thinking of point-to-point microwave links; the fact that one Minister is pushing satellite technology; cellular solutions; long-term evolution solutions; and, today, people talking about moving signals down electric wire.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; I am sorry if I am a minute early according to his guidelines! If there is one message that we all want the Minister to take away from today’s debate, is it not this? Communities that are geographically isolated should not be allowed to become digitally isolated.
Rory Stewart
That is a fantastic point. Of course, the complexity of what the Government are dealing with is astonishing. It is not just topography or technology; it includes cost, legal issues such as European state aid regulations, and issues such as the spectrum auction, which I hope to come on to briefly.
May I make a little progress for another minute and a half before I take any more interventions? This project owes an enormous amount to ministerial leadership—not just that of the Minister, but of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and has seen enormous progress to date. However, it is a revolution in methodology and procurement. People are having to push boundaries on procurement and methodology that would have been unimaginable 11 months previously. People are having to be much more flexible. Instead of going for big, framework, county council solutions, they are having to respond, often parish by parish, to very different technological solutions within a single area of 100 square miles. That involves risk. It involves generous investment by the Government. It involves piloting measures.
What does this mean? For the new policy, it means three lessons. We need to share the lessons from all the pilots much more effectively around the country. I hope that this is the beginning of a series of Westminster Hall debates—if anyone has the patience—in which we can take the lessons further. We need to look much more seriously at finance. Of course, there is great inspiration from the United States in the 1920s and ’30s, when a dedicated bank was set up for communities to electrify rural areas. The green investment bank is a good beginning for our Government in that direction. The big society bank is another good beginning. I would like to see finance facilities available specifically for parishes and communities to be able to move ahead with their own broadband.
The final issue is the rural spectrum auction. We talk a lot about broadband. We must think about mobile coverage. An Ofcom consultation is taking place at the moment. Ofcom is pushing only for 95% coverage for this spectrum. We need to shove it up from that, because 95% coverage will mean that most of the areas represented in this Chamber will not be covered. On those grounds, I will take my second intervention.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that now is an excellent time to urge the Minister to address the twin problems of broadband and mobile phone coverage, not one or the other and not even sequentially, because in rural areas it would be impossible to deliver on the big society pledge without both those issues being addressed?
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I would like to reinforce a suggestion that has already been made twofold; I echo both suggestions that have been made so far. We have had a second summit in Herefordshire. We have been one of the very fortunate recipients of the first pilots, for which I am enormously grateful to the Minister and to officials. The overwhelming feedback that has come through has picked up both the mobile point and the point about 100% coverage in rural areas. That is regarded as the basic requirement. There is a sense of digital entitlement that will not be thwarted. That means an interesting mix of technologies, which takes us that final mile to the person who is living in the mountains.
Rory Stewart
Those were two very important and effective interventions. Mobile telephone coverage is better in Kabul than in Cumbria. Any of us who travels around Europe will find that the coverage is much better in the Norwegian fjords than it is in Cornwall or Wales. That really matters for us.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I endorse what my hon. Friend says about coverage. In Devon, my part of the world, 9% of people have either no coverage at all or less than 2 megabits per second, which is horrendous, and 22% of rural businesses say that without superfast broadband, they are going to move nowhere fast, so it is imperative that we take action on that.
Rory Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend very much. On the point about mobile coverage, the statistics on coverage are very dodgy. In the Ofcom consultation document, there is a shocking paragraph in which it says, “We do not have the methodology to work out exactly what the current coverage is in rural areas and therefore it is difficult for us to factor into the auction what the economic benefits will be of achieving 100% coverage in rural areas.” Therefore, Ofcom is saying that it is likely to push ahead with a lower coverage obligation, not on the basis of any research but on the basis of an assumption that research would be difficult and that the results would be unquantifiable. I do not think that anyone in this Chamber thinks that that would be acceptable.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
As another Devon MP, I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said. We have beautiful countryside in Devon, but we also have very poor roads. Therefore, if we had good, fast broadband, many of the businesses could remain in the area and could be built up, along with all the health and education needs being met. This is about delivering competitive broadband throughout rural areas. I urge the Minister to ensure that when bids are being considered from various areas, Devon is given a bite of the cherry.
Rory Stewart
To finish on mobile coverage, the rural spectrum auction will be essential. As people are aware, a big auction of 4G is being consulted on at the moment. That includes very exciting spectrum that comes from the digital switchover. That is spectrum that allows us to push signals a very long distance, but perhaps not so many data down those signals. That is the kind of spectrum that we would like to get for rural areas. Everyone in this Chamber who can join us in pushing the Government from 95% to perhaps 98% in the rural spectrum auction and pushing back against the Treasury, which will say that it will not receive as much money from the mobile phone providers if that kind of rural requirement is put in place—
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
On that point, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There is a risk that the Treasury will demand a high price now, but it will cost a fortune later, when we are reliant on delivery of services, as he described, through the use of mobile broadband. The cost of putting in extra provision then will cost the country so much money that we will be told that we cannot afford to do it.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend reminds me that when I was in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan, I noted that coverage was much better than in South Norfolk.
May I point out that six of the Members here for this debate were here for the previous debate on pig farming? They stayed because we all represent isolated rural areas, and many of the problems that we face apply not only to agriculture but to broadband. Does my hon. Friend agree that what was said about the Treasury is particularly important? Getting it right, and getting 100% coverage, will enable the kind of economic growth and the extra tax base, with more tax being paid by rural communities, that will do a great deal to get us out of the present economic hole in which we find ourselves.
Rory Stewart
That is a brilliant point, and a very good one to make about the Budget. The Budget focuses above all on two things—what we are doing with fuel and what we are doing for small and medium-sized enterprises in trying to support exactly the sort of businesses that exist in our areas. Without superfast broadband and mobile coverage, it is difficult to understand how they will flourish.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As usual, he speaks powerfully and succinctly. He spoke of pushing the Government to go from 95% to 98% in the auction. Is there any reason why we should not aim for 100%—that we set it out as a universal service base?
We in the House should send a clear message to the Minister and others that unless there are overwhelming financial or technical arguments against it we should look for 100% coverage. We have long had universal post, but universal digital access is more important than the post ever was. Perhaps we need to send that signal, and ensure that Ministers cannot chivvy away at a few percentage points on the side.
Rory Stewart
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. The answer must distinguish between broadband coverage and mobile phone coverage. We have a universal commitment for broadband coverage, and we are pushing for a 2 megabits universal service commitment by 2015, but mobile phone coverage is not in place. Were we to push for 100%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) suggested, instead of the mobile telephone companies paying the Treasury for that spectrum we would end up with the Treasury paying them to take it. It is perfectly possible, as was suggested, that we could make a powerful economic argument to the Treasury on why it might make sense for the Treasury to pay mobile telephone providers to take it, but to do so we would need some very robust figures.
One sad thing about the Ofcom debate is that we do not yet have a group powerful enough to put those figures in place. Such figures would prove that 92% of those businesses in Penrith and The Border that employ fewer than 10 people would benefit enormously. In addition—this applies in all our areas, because many retired people live there—applications for telemedicine and telehealth with mobile phone coverage are much more exciting than those that currently exist on broadband.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I want to say how important it is for businesses to get proper access to broadband and mobile coverage. I would add that in rural areas, it is good to facilitate independent living through good communications. That is another aspect to be considered.
Rory Stewart
I am aware that I should be coming to a conclusion, but at the end of my speech I shall draw together some of these interventions. The lessons show that it will be difficult.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—and for having his finger on the digital pulse, given the number of Members packed into the Chamber. I do not know why we are not having an hour-and-a-half debate, although I suspect that my hon. Friend tried for one.
We heard in the Budget that superfast broadband will be a big benefit for enterprise zones. I am in a rural community, and my businesses were badly hit in December because of the heavy snow. Andel, a firm that is based at the top of the valley in Marsden, wanted to Skype when doing business with eastern Europe, but it could not; the firm raised the matter with me a couple of weeks ago. Can we try to ensure that the money that is raised—something mentioned by my hon. Friend—is ring-fenced, and that some of the funds raised through the 4G auction are invested in the superfast broadband network?
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
My hon. Friend may not be aware that below Lincoln are urban areas, within the constituency but outside the city boundary, and including Bracebridge heath, that still have problems with a lack of suitable broadband provision. All Conservative councils, particularly North Kesteven district council and local Conservative Councillor Mike Gallagher, have been active in seeking to resolve the matter, and have established a good connections group as part of the Lincolnshire sustainable community strategy. Indeed, they have applied to BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—for pilot scheme funding to improve the provision of broadband in those areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to work together to improve our constituents’ access to suitable broadband connectivity and to enhance the competitiveness of businesses in our constituencies?
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I am a little concerned that my hon. Friend is about to finish his speech, because I would like briefly to pay tribute to his leadership on this matter, on which he is the most knowledgeable person in the House. I hope that Cumbria, together with north Yorkshire, will build the arc of superfast broadband across rural northern Britain.
Before he concludes, will my hon. Friend talk a little about the responsibility of communities in dealing with the matter? I am concerned that the debate has gone a little too far towards Government solutions and council solutions. He has played an exceptional role in getting communities motivated. How does he do it?
Rory Stewart
I give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Will he adequately distinguish between superfast broadband and the kind of broadband that small businesses need in order to make the economic difference that we all want them to make as quickly as possible? The Government do not always distinguish between broadband, which enables small businesses to offer their services to the entire world, and superfast broadband which may have economic benefits in future that have yet to be fully quantified.
Rory Stewart
I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman).
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and pay tribute to his leadership in this important field. He mentioned the Treasury, and I wish to speak about the payback potential of such investment.
As with so many infrastructure matters, the payback is enormous, and I urge the Minister to make the case to the Treasury. The Chancellor gave a stunning Budget today, outlining investment in East Anglia—for science in Norwich and Cambridge and for the A11. It could herald a renaissance of small business and high technology, but it will not happen without good broadband. With it, we would be paid back in spades—it would pay huge dividends to the Treasury. Somehow, we must find a mechanism to anticipate that growth, using it now to fund the infrastructure that will feed it.
Rory Stewart
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I represent undoubtedly the most remote and hard-to-please area. The Minister must understand that there is a way forward, provided that we harness the efforts being made for existing communications. If we do so, there will be a great addition.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. He started the debate, but he has not had time to speak. Does he concede that we are talking about rolling out broadband to rural businesses to help support them? If we do not do this, businesses will leave rural areas for urban areas and end up exacerbating rural deprivation.
Pamela Nash
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have so far concentrated on fibre-optics as being the answer to the problems of all rural communities and broadband? Does he agree that we should diversify that money in the next spending round?
Rory Stewart
I thank all who have intervened. I shall try to conclude in 60 seconds, and I shall take no more interventions. I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) for what she said, and all who intervened on the subject of communities, because I wish to conclude by mentioning those two factors.
The Government are handling two complex issues. One is how to deal with a rapidly changing technological picture, where the fibre-optic investment that seems sensible this year may seem less sensible, than the 4G investment next year, or moving signal down an electric wire the year after.
The most important thing is not just the flexibility with technology or, indeed, the distinctions that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central drew between the 2 meg access many businesses want today and the superfast access they might want in future but the question of communities. Our procurement processes have tended to be very centralised and one size fits all, of which Cornwall was the absolute epitome, with more than £100 million being spent on an area of 1,000 square miles and delivered through the county council with a major telecoms provider.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested, it is essential that we give parishes a voice. Parishes and communities will provide financing and labour, they will waive wayleaves, they will dig their own trenches and they will connect their own fibre-optic, allowing us to achieve much broader coverage and much faster speeds in a fraction of the time. That will be possible only if the Government hold their nerve, resist the temptation, often from county councils, to spread the money thinly across a large area and allow genuine pilots in response to communities. That requires the commercial sector to be more flexible, allowing communities to connect to their point of presences. Data charging rates must be reasonable, and if the community digs and installs the fibre it must not be charged as though the commercial provider had dug it.
The Government are absolutely on the right track with those huge challenges.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I wish to reinforce my hon. Friend’s argument. I have a cautionary tale from my own patch, in the parishes of Over Wyresdale and Quernmore. The community, which is prepared to do the digging and where farmers are on board, made a bid, but it has been swept into a county-wide European regional funding bid involving a national internet provider. It will not get what it wants and will lose all the economic benefits of a community doing things for itself. The service will be far more costly and will deliver less than the community could do itself.
Rory Stewart
On that note, I will conclude by making four points: first, huge thanks to the Government; secondly, in the spectrum auction we must push for much broader coverage of rural mobile; thirdly, there must be much more flexibility for communities in procurement; and, fourthly, I wish everyone good luck.
I thank you, Mr Bayley, for your patience during this rather eccentric debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. May I say what a lovely time I spent in your constituency visiting the National Railway museum, which was placed in York by Margaret Thatcher, who pioneered the role of culture in urban regeneration? I know that you will want to acknowledge that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for initiating the debate. With a one-line Whip on a Wednesday afternoon following the Budget statement, I had expected a quiet discussion between him and me, but I should have known that when he is involved in something it always becomes much bigger than it says on the paper.
I pay tribute to my 17 Conservative colleagues who have turned up and to the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who is no longer here, but who is a former Ofcom employee and perhaps should be lobbied by hon. Members on rural mobile coverage. Having heard interventions from Carmarthen, Herefordshire, East Yorkshire, Suffolk, Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Devon, Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Lancashire, no one can doubt rural communities’ desire to achieve broadband roll-out. Although it would be iniquitous to pick a single example, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) for the simple reason that my wife was born in Stroud. In fact, her birth appeared on the front page of the Stroud newspaper because she was born on new year’s day—but enough of that.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, who praised me and the Secretary of State for the work we are doing on broadband roll-out. We have managed to purloin £530 million to help to fund broadband roll-out. It is important to make the point that that is specifically for places where the market will not deliver. The broadband for about 66% of the population will be delivered by the market—I understand the tone of the debate; that will broadly be BT and Virgin Media—but the rest of the money is set aside for mainly rural communities.
I also concur with my hon. Friend in his praise for key officials—Rob Sullivan, Mike Kiely and all the others who work so hard at Broadband Delivery UK, as well as officials now at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport supervising the process. They have worked intensively with local authorities. Four pilot areas, three of which are represented in the debate, are about to go out to tender. A second wave is on the stocks; 11 areas have already expressed an interest and there are two more days for a local authority or local community to express an interest in bidding for broadband delivery. Hon. Members are free to speak to any areas that have not yet expressed an interest in bidding, and we hope to announce the next wave towards the end of May. We are also working closely with the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that this is a United Kingdom initiative.
I am confident that we will soon make rapid progress. The pilots have been extremely important for Broadband Delivery UK in understanding and learning about the tendering process, and although people might feel that it has taken some time, the hard work of the four pilots—the vanguard—will ensure that future pilots are taken forward much more quickly in understanding the tendering process and in continuous learning following the tendering process, as we begin to dig holes in the ground to lay broadband.
A number of other key points were made. To a certain extent, the debate morphed into a discussion of mobile coverage. I want to make these points. I stress that the pilots and the future waves of broadband delivery are technology-neutral. The best broadband is probably delivered by fibre, but there will be other solutions in some rural areas, such as digital fibre points, whereby WiMax will take the broadband further, and mobile solutions. There will also be satellite technology solutions.
Rural mobile coverage is extremely important. Ofcom has begun its consultation on the auction of 4G spectrum. I ask hon. Members who bump into the chief executives of the four chief mobile operators to urge them not to turn to their learned friends and litigate with the Government over the rules. We are anxious to get the spectrum out there; it has been a protracted process. We are very aware of the needs of rural coverage, and I am discussing with Ofcom how we ensure that it is available under the spectrum allocation. Let us not forget that spectrum allocation is important to the whole UK and to the UK economy, especially with the rise of the smart phone.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border says about the possibility of broadband roll-out being a big government solution. He will know that I am extremely anxious to see community broadband solutions, but—perhaps this is pushing back on my hon. Friends—but they are in a position to sit down and discuss with their county councils the best way forward on the bidding process. It is easier for a county council, perhaps with its own money and additional money from Europe, to seek match funding from the Government, but its tender need not be a big company or big government solution and can include community broadband solutions.
The key is to ensure that community broadband solutions are technically joined up so that that network can be available for other users. Should, for any reason, a community broadband operator fall away, that network would still be available to be used and integrated into the county-wide network. I urge my hon. Friends who, on behalf of their constituents, have rightly expressed an interest in rural broadband to discuss with their county councils how they are bidding, urge them to put in place one or two people who will lead the process full time and ensure that community and parish voices are heard in proposing the solution.
The debate has shown that the broadband initiative is gaining real momentum. The Government have put in place the money. We are also putting in place deregulatory initiatives—for example, on deployment of broadband across telegraph poles for the first time and on wayleaves. We are anxious to work. Towards the end of the year, we will begin to see a process whereby counties, when they are ready, can simply come to us with a proposal and, I hope, some funding of their own, which we will be in a position to match.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I congratulate the Minister on getting so much of his speech into the time available.
Disability Living Allowance
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
I will give colleagues leaving the previous debate an opportunity to sneak out—I am sorry that they cannot stay.
I am delighted to have secured this debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and her comments on the wider issues that I am about to raise. There is probably no better place to begin debating disability living allowance than with the mobility component for blind people. An amendment that I tabled to the Welfare Reform Act 2009 and that will come into force in April will enable blind people to claim the higher mobility rate component of DLA. However, if the Government go ahead with the proposals in the consultation on a new assessment for DLA to remove the amendment that I successfully tabled to the 2009 Act, about 20,000 blind people across the UK could lose out. That means that 20,000 blind people in the UK, including 2,000 blind people in Scotland and 300 in my own city of Glasgow alone, could lose access to the higher rate mobility component DLA. That means they would lose at least £1,500 a year. That is a considerable sum for anyone, but it is a vital lifeline for blind people, who generally come from poor backgrounds.
The public consultation by the Department for Work and Pensions on DLA reform, which was published in December last year, raised concerns about the issue. The specific threat to the DLA mobility component appears in point 6 on page 4 of the document, which says:
“Currently individuals on DLA with certain health conditions or impairments are automatically entitled to specific rates of the benefit without a full assessment. We propose that for Personal Independence Payment there are no automatic entitlements, other than the special rules for people who are terminally ill. Instead, each case will be looked at individually, considering the impact of the impairment or health condition, rather than basing the decision on the health condition or impairment itself.”
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend think of a way in which a blind person’s condition can improve? Why is there a need for a review?
John Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I will use a couple of cases as examples as I go through my speech.
On page 37 of the DWP consultation document, there is a list of automatic entitlements that the Government propose to remove, including one for blind people—the “severely visually impaired”. That entitlement was brought in as result of my amendment to the 2009 Act. The DWP consultation posed many more questions than it answered. We learned that the assessment for the new personal independence payment, which I will call “PIP”, will
“prioritise support on those individuals who face the greatest day-to-day challenges and who are therefore likely to experience higher costs.”
However, that wording was sufficiently vague that it could be overshadowed and interpreted in the light of other developments. Rules on eligibility would be restricted in such a way as to question the ongoing entitlement of disabled people in receipt of the lowest rates of the care and mobility components. PIP would consist of a mobility and daily living component, but unlike the existing care component, the new daily living component would comprise two rates, not three. An individual’s adaptation to their impairment would be taken into account in determining entitlement to PIP, presumably as a cost-cutting exercise.
I will not deal now with the plans to remove DLA mobility from individuals in residential care, as those plans were the subject of another Westminster Hall debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). I will simply add that it is reassuring that the Government will review mobility provisions for people living in care settings, but I still note the intention to remove DLA mobility for people in residential care in 2013, albeit one year later than originally proposed.
One of my most serious concerns relates to the Government’s plans to end automatic entitlement to DLA for people who clearly ought to have it, including the higher mobility component for people who have severe mental health problems, who are deafblind or are severely visually impaired. Individuals with those disabilities, along with people who are double amputees, automatically qualify for the higher rate, because they meet the strict criteria on the severity of their impairment.
That automatic entitlement is a clear and administratively efficient way of identifying disabled people with the highest level of mobility needs. In future, each case will be looked at individually, except the cases of people who are living with a terminal illness. Organisations for disabled people tell me that they do not believe that that is a sensible approach, as it will increase the costs of assessment while leading to the same outcome as the original system, and people with the most severe impairments will still receive the higher rate of benefit.
As I have mentioned, in three weeks’ time, more than 20,000 people in the UK with severe sight loss will be entitled, for the first time, to the higher rate mobility component of DLA and they will receive the extra £30 a week that they need in their pockets to maintain a decent quality of life. I tabled my amendment to the 2009 Act in the first place because of my strongly held belief that there is no good reason for discriminating between someone who faces physical barriers to mobility and someone who is unable to move around safely and independently as a result of blindness.
I want to tell the Minister about one of my constituents, as his case was the one that spurred me on to table the amendment to the 2009 Act in the first place. Alan McDonald has been blind from birth, has orientation problems and faces huge hurdles in getting around. He is unable to use public transport because of his difficulties in getting on and off buses and trains. Either he has to spend his other benefits on taxis, although they are meant to provide other support, or he is forced to rely on his sister to give him a lift to wherever he needs to go; otherwise, he has to stay at home.
Alan’s blindness is not the only barrier to his mobility. For example, when I tabled the amendment to the 2009 Act he was awaiting a second kidney transplant and was due to undergo surgery for hardening of the arteries. Despite all those difficulties, however, he was told on several occasions that he simply did not qualify for the higher-rate mobility component of DLA, because he was physically able to walk. Yes, he could walk—he could walk into wheelie bins, or into a set of traffic lights, or even into the middle of the road where he would be knocked down; but he could walk, so he did not get the money.
The barriers that Alan faces are just as great as those faced by someone who cannot walk, and the current situation is nonsensical. I believe that the Minister has to consider such things. It is unbelievable that somebody with such disabilities might not receive the higher rate of disability allowance in two years’ time, having finally received it after all these years.
Blind people such as Alan are justifiably angry about the discriminatory and unfair treatment that they receive, but they will feel even angrier and let down when the DLA mobility component, which comes into being in April, is taken away from them in just two years’ time. That will put them back to square one.
Many charities have contacted me because they are alarmed about the Government’s proposals. For example, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is concerned about the proposal that PIP should replace DLA. In particular, the association is concerned about the proposal in the DWP report on DLA reform proposals to
“take greater account of aids and adaptations”.
Taking into account the use of aids and adaptations when assessing eligibility could inadvertently penalise an individual who uses such equipment to try to reduce some of the difficulties that they face as a disabled person.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend’s campaign and the passion with which he is putting a very powerful case. Has he been contacted by the National Autistic Society? I ask that because there is enormous concern on the part of those who care for autistic people and those with family members who are autistic, as DLA is crucial for communication, travel and services for autistic people. It is crucial that access to DLA be retained for autistic people as well as for the other people whom my hon. Friend has mentioned.
John Robertson
I thank my right hon. Friend, who has more than a little reputation of looking after these people, both as a Minister and as a member of the previous Government. I congratulate him on the work that he has done. I have been contacted by so many groups that I could not possibly name them all in my speech today. If I miss any of them out, it is not because I want to do so, but because my speech is time-limited, but yes, I have received correspondence from the National Autistic Society and I thank my right hon. Friend for his input.
Any reduction in disability-related benefits simply because of someone’s access to equipment could significantly inhibit their efforts to lead a more independent life. Disability-related benefits enable people not only to live independently, but to participate in community activities. Such community engagement could include volunteering, which is a core component of the big society and could help someone to gain skills and experience that could enable them to go on to seek and obtain work.
Several wrong assumptions could be made about the effectiveness of aids and adaptations. They might work for some individuals, but others might struggle with them. Issuing someone with a cane or a low-vision aid such as a monocular, does not necessarily mean that that person will continue to use it, or use it correctly. Even if the aids and adaptations are used appropriately, they are likely to have only limited uses. For example, a liquid level indicator might help someone safely to make a hot drink, but it will not make it any easier for them to make a meal to go with that drink. How will the Government help these people?
I know of another gentleman, David Griffith from Walthamstow in London, who receives the mobility component of DLA because he is deafblind, like Alan. He uses his DLA to pay for taxis, and for other support in getting out and about. He also tries to walk in his local area, and has recently applied for a guide dog because he has had a few near misses with cars of late. However, having heard a feature on the BBC Radio 4 programme “In Touch,” he is now worried that becoming a guide dog owner might result in the removal of his DLA. Under the proposals, a guide dog would enhance his life and make him safer in one element of his mobility, but he would never have the independence that sighted people have. He would not be able to jump out of the way of the car that was about to hit him, and he might travel on a bus that he did not mean to get on in the first place.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that something else that is hitting people is the proposed extension of the waiting period for DLA from three to six months? A constituent came to me who had been blinded in a road accident and was considering adaptations. He faced the cost of those straight away, and under the proposal he would have to wait even longer for the money.
John Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She is absolutely right, and perhaps the Minister could reflect on the impact of that increased period on people who do not have the extra time to wait. They need the money now, not in six months’ time. There is a danger that people like David will turn down help such as that provided through mobility training with a guide dog or a cane for fear of losing a benefit that they would still need, with or without the mobility aid. What does the Minister propose to do for Alan and David and people like them?
In conclusion, the Government state that 3 million people receive DLA and that the budget will reach £12 billion, and they draw the conclusion that the benefit is not fit for purpose. I wonder whether a better conclusion would be that the benefit rightly reaches the millions of people it is supposed to help. Reform might be necessary, and disabled people have expressed themselves on the changes they would like, not least shorter application forms in line with their disability and, of course, quicker receipt of the money. Are we not in danger, however, of going so far with the reforms that we lose sight of what DLA was originally set up for? DLA is there to assist people with disabilities that make life more expensive. It is there to help people stretch their incomes that little bit further, so that they can achieve the levels of independence and enjoy the opportunities that their non-disabled peers take for granted. Are we really saying that a fifth of today’s case load is no longer in need of that support? Have we really examined how the reforms will exacerbate disability poverty? Those questions are, in my view, central to this debate on the Government’s plans for DLA.
I hope that the Minister listens to and answers my questions. Let me reiterate some of them. Will the Government confirm that their intention is to revise this policy, which has been hard fought for and pursued over a number of years by parliamentarians on every side? Will the higher rate mobility component for individuals with severe visual impairments be awarded for just two years? Have the Government modelled the net loss of household income when individuals lose entitlement to DLA, and does their equality impact assessment acknowledge the lack of social care and other support for people with less complex needs? How much will that cost? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the assessment for PIP is not just a cost-cutting exercise but is fair and accurate, especially with regard to its suitability for people with fluctuating or mental health conditions, and those with lower-incidence conditions? At a time when the Government wish to tackle bureaucracy and simplify the benefits system, how can it make sense to insist that all disabled people, including individuals who evidently have severe needs, undergo regular reassessment?
I am calling for greater clarification on what impact the 20% cuts will have on determining who will be eligible for the new PIP and at what level. Will people who qualify for the lowest rate of DLA qualify for PIP under the new system? Will the Government ensure that those who qualify for the higher rate mobility component because they are deemed to have severe blindness can continue to receive PIP via that route? Finally, will a comprehensive training programme on blindness be made available for assessors for PIP? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship of this very important debate, Mr Bayley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing both the debate and the attendance of so many Members when the Budget debate is taking place in the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to set out again some of the facts to counter some of the assumptions that have been made, not only by organisations but by some people who have been listening to the debate thus far. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s questions are answered in my comments, but if he feels that any of them need to be further investigated I will be very happy to do that with him separately.
I would first like to ensure that it is very clear to Members that the Government are not talking about a 20% cut in the current case load, but about ensuring that the budget for DLA is kept under control in the future, and that the rate of increase that we have seen—some 30% in the past eight years—does not continue as steeply. That is important, because the misunderstanding about how the budget works has caused great distress among my constituents, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and, I am sure, other Members’ constituents.
John Robertson
Will the Minister accept that the impression is that it is the budget and not the people who have the disabilities that will determine how much people get? It is not possible to budget for people with disabilities, but if we do we have to say, “We’re going to let only so many people get disability allowance.”
Maria Miller
I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have to make difficult decisions in many areas, not only regarding how much we spend to support disabled people. At a time of financial crisis, as a result of the problems with controlling costs under the previous Administration, we have to make tough decisions, but the decision that we have made is that we want to support the most vulnerable people through DLA and its successor, and also through many of the other benefits that we have. The introduction of universal credit will do a great deal to support those people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and in mine, who are disabled.
Maria Miller
I shall just make some progress.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West has long battled to change how blind and severely impaired people are treated under the old DLA regime, and that serves as an excellent example of the shortcomings evident in DLA because of its complexity, poor targeting and inflexibility. I certainly applaud his determination to get the support that disabled people need. The failure of his constituent to get the support that he needed through DLA is a great example of why we need reform.
If the hon. Gentleman had not had to deal with the faulty framework of the DLA in the first place, it might have taken him slightly less determination, and slightly less than two years—some people might say less than 10—to make the changes in primary legislation and then in regulations that were needed to get the present measure supporting severely visually impaired individuals on the statute book. That is why we are taking a fundamentally fresh approach to dealing with that area of benefits through the personal independence payment, so that we can adjust it and the assessments through regulations in the first instance and maintain the flexibility required to ensure that the benefit reflects people’s experiences and is adaptable enough to cope with the dynamic nature of society’s response to disability.
The personal independence payment has been designed with the support of disabled people and specialists to provide an objective assessment and ensure that we can help disabled people overcome the barriers that they face to living full and independent lives. That means looking past broad categories of impairment and labels and instead treating people as individuals. In doing so, we must consider the impact of all disabilities: not only physical disabilities—some criticise the DLA for favouring people with physical disabilities—but the mental, cognitive and sensory impairments that many of us know need more support. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) mentioned individuals dealing with autism. Some people deal with multiple disabilities as well. That is the only way for us to deliver targeted benefit that is fair to all those who need extra help and who face the biggest challenges leading independent lives.
The personal independence payment also addresses yet another of the many weaknesses of DLA. The DLA assessment for the higher rate of mobility component, on which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West focused, is framed in the rather simplistic medical context of whether the person can walk. In practice, that means that people facing broader issues involving mental health problems, learning disabilities or sensory impairments such as blindness could be left, as they have been, disadvantaged under that narrow definition. With the introduction of PIP, what we want to ask is not simply whether people can walk but whether they can get out and about, plan a route and navigate from A to B, because that is the challenge that disabled people face.
John Robertson
I understand what the Minister is trying to say, but just because I can plan a route does not mean that I can go that route. We are trying to help people who have been assessed as unable to work, but who might be able to work if we can get them to the right place. My constituent Alan can work at a computer, but first he must get there, and the only way for him to do so is for somebody to be with him. He must get a lift, and he must be accompanied. If people have no one to do that for them or cannot afford a taxi, it cannot happen. The money that Alan gets is vital, and he is not alone. There are lots of people like him all over the country. Why must they be reassessed all the time? They know what they are like. They have been through the system already.
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman raises several issues. DLA is not an out-of-work benefit. People in work can claim it, as they can claim access to work, which can also help them. However, I think his fundamental point is that we must recognise the true barriers that people face, not simply say that because they have a particular impairment they should receive a particular rate. We must understand the realities of their lives. He has made that point clearly on behalf of his constituent. I agree absolutely. That is how we are designing the personal independence payment. We are not saying that if somebody has a particular condition, their assessment should have a particular outcome; we are doing what he has done and considering the impact on people’s lives. I do not think that DLA does so.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned aids and adaptations. We must ensure, again, that we do not try to squeeze individuals into a one-size-fits-all box. That is doomed to fail, as he has pointed out. We need to consider how people can use aids and adaptations to improve how they live. We cannot simply ignore or discount aids and adaptations; the taxpayer pays £250 million a year for them. The main point is that if we do not consider how people actually live, we will never be able to provide more targeted support. What has happened is an extrapolation of what that might mean for the assessment process. I am not saying that we will include the imputed value of an aid or adaptation as a part of the assessment process. We are asking what day-to-day adaptations help improve people’s ability to live an independent life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the example of guide dogs. I will explain why the issue is not being understood as well as it needs to be.
I assure hon. Members that we have absolutely no intention of penalising visually impaired people who can get out and about and live independently only with the help of a guide dog, largely because the activities that the assessment is likely to consider are not activities with which a guide dog can necessarily help. Guide dogs are extremely intelligent animals, but they do not help people eat, drink, manage their personal care, take treatments or communicate. Well, some of them help people communicate, but in a different way. Although guide dogs help people get out and about, they do not in themselves improve an individual’s physical ability to walk or to plan a journey. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that there is little opportunity for someone who uses a guide dog to feel that they will be penalised for making that important adaptation.
Another aspect on which we have been asking for people’s thoughts in the consultation is whether we could use the new personal independence payment assessment as an opportunity to signpost people to additional support and help, or a touch point for getting people the help that they need. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we should not miss such an opportunity. Too often, disabled people do not get treatment for all the conditions with which they must cope. The assessment is an opportunity.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing this important debate. Does the Minister agree that it is important, having heard some of the details in this debate, that we cut through the myths, worries and concerns about the changes and stress the point that personal independence payments will bring more targeted help to those who really need it? As a result, many people will get more help than they do at the moment.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend could well be right. The assessment is being finalised. We want to ensure that support reaches people. I like to say that it is about getting help to the people who find it most difficult to live the independent lives that they would like. That is a positive way of thinking of it. Some of the evidence that the Public Bill Committee is hearing has applauded the positive nature of the personal independence payment. It is heartening to see it as a potential improvement.
Pamela Nash
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is being generous with her time, but I must say that her response so far has not filled me with confidence that my constituents who need the benefits to cope with their disabilities will still receive them, particularly as she referred immediately to deficit reduction when she responded to the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson). Can she make it clear whether a ceiling will be put on the benefits available, and therefore on the number of successful claimants of PIP?
Maria Miller
As the hon. Lady knows, any area of expenditure must work within a financial budget. We are putting the assessment first and foremost in order to get it right for disabled people and ensure that the funding available reaches people such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, who might have found it difficult to get support in the past because the DLA was invented some 20 years ago and perhaps does not reflect how we would like to think of disabilities today.
In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that despite our differences in approach, we have a similar outcome in mind. We want to deliver a fair and affordable benefit system that serves the interests of disabled people and the communities in which they live. That is our starting point for DLA reform, and that is how we will ensure that disabled people have enough choice and control in their lives to live as independently as possible. I am determined that we will get it right and continue to provide the right support, targeted at the right people, in a way that is fair for everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Debt and Service Management Report 2011-12
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The “Debt and reserves management report 2011-12” is being published today. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Council Tax
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I am pleased to inform the House that all eligible local, fire and rescue and police authorities in England have decided to freeze or reduce their band D council tax in 2011-12 and will therefore all be eligible to receive the additional grant offered by the Government for doing so. The average band D rate of council tax will remain at £1,439—a change of 0%. This is the lowest ever change in the entire history of council tax. It represents a cash-terms freeze, and a real-terms cut in council tax. The capping threshold in recent years was a 5% council tax rise. Stopping such a rise this year saves a typical household up to £72 and if an average 2.5% rise had occurred the saving would have been £36.
Council tax payers in some areas may see a small cash increase in their overall bill due to precept increases set by town and parish councils; central Government have no remit over such precepts. However, nationally, this is offset by some councils which are making cash-terms reductions to council tax levels.
The Government have delivered on their promise to work with authorities to produce a council tax freeze in England, which is tremendous news for hard-working families and pensioners who have experienced a doubling of council tax since 1997.
The spending review made £650 million available for the council tax freeze. Where an authority has not increased its basic amount of council tax in 2011-12 compared with 2010-11, it will receive a grant equivalent to a 2.5% increase in its 2010-11 band D figure multiplied by the latest available tax base figure.
My Department will write to individual local authorities this week informing them of the amount of freeze grant I propose to pay to them during 2011-12. I intend the grant to be paid in 10 equal monthly instalments from April 2011 through to January 2012. Following the 100% response to the freeze by eligible authorities, no further capping action is required in 2011-12.
Although the council tax freeze is only for one year, financial provision is made to support the freeze across the spending review. This will “lock in” the benefits of this year’s freeze over each year over the spending review.
Moving forward, the Localism Bill makes provision for the abolition of central Government capping powers, replacing them with new, binding council tax referendums from 2012-13 whenever an authority is proposing an excessive increase.
The Government have also protected families from potential increases in council tax by ruling out a council tax revaluation in England for the remainder of this Parliament. The Localism Bill also legislates to abolish bin taxes—which would have entailed new charges for household waste collections for many families on top of council tax.
Guidance on Work Force Matters
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The growth review has announced that the Government will act to remove barriers to more open and efficient local public services including guidance on work force matters. I wish to provide the House with a detailed update on our approach, including plans to discuss with employers, employee representatives and others whether any alternative arrangements might be useful in the future.
I am revoking, with immediate effect, the guidance on work force matters which formed part of the last Administration’s best value regime. This is the handling of work force matters in contracting and the code of practice on work force matters in local authority service contracts (“the two tier code”) (“Annexes C and D plus paragraphs 28 to 31 of ODPM Circular 03/2003”) and corresponding guidance applicable to fire and rescue authorities and the Greater London Authority (“ODPM circulars 07/2003 for the GLA and 09/2004 for the Fire and Rescue Service”).
Councils, the voluntary sector and businesses—especially small firms—have called on the Government to remove unnecessary burdens and barriers that act to prevent fair and open competition. Removing this guidance will help create a level playing field, ensure more opportunities for innovation, help ensure better value for taxpayers’ money in the provision of public services, and remove red tape that hinders job creation.
The withdrawal of the two-tier code will not impact on existing TUPE regulations and provisions in the Employment Act 2008 or other employment legislation. There may be instances where contracts will be due for renewal or are currently out to tender and it will be a matter for local authorities to take legal advice on the particular contract specifications and circumstances. The abolition will not be applied retrospectively. Therefore existing contracts and the employment terms that flow from them will not be affected by withdrawal of the code.
I will be writing over the coming days to employers, employee representatives and others to invite their views on whether there might be anything, such as a statement of good employment principles in place of the code, that would be helpful for the future.
Planning for Growth
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today issued a call to action on growth, publishing an ambitious set of proposals to help rebuild Britain’s economy. The planning system has a key role to play in this, by ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible. We will work quickly to reform the planning system to achieve this, but the Government recognise that many of these actions will take some months to deliver, and that there is a pressing need to ensure that the planning system does everything it can to help secure a swift return to economic growth. This statement therefore sets out the steps the Government expect local planning authorities to take with immediate effect.
The Government’s top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.
The Chancellor has today set out further detail on our commitment to introduce a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming national planning policy framework, which will expect local planning authorities to plan positively for new development; to deal promptly and favourably with applications that comply with up-to-date plans and national planning policies; and wherever possible to approve applications where plans are absent, out of date, silent or indeterminate.
Local planning authorities should therefore press ahead without delay in preparing up-to-date development plans, and should use that opportunity to be proactive in driving and supporting the growth that this country needs. They should make every effort to identify and meet the housing, business and other development needs of their areas, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth, taking full account of relevant economic signals such as land prices. Authorities should work together to ensure that needs and opportunities that extend beyond (or cannot be met within) their own boundaries are identified and accommodated in a sustainable way, such as housing market requirements that cover a number of areas, and the strategic infrastructure necessary to support growth.
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of sustainable development. Where relevant—and consistent with their statutory obligations—they should therefore:
consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust growth after the recent recession;
take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing;
consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long-term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity);
be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date; and
ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
To further ensure that development can go ahead, all local authorities should reconsider, at developers’ request, existing section 106 agreements that currently render schemes unviable, and where possible modify those obligations to allow development to proceed; provided this continues to ensure that the development remains acceptable in planning terms.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will take the principles in this statement into account when determining applications that come before him for decision. In particular he will attach significant weight to the need to secure economic growth and employment.
Benefits to the economy should, where relevant, be an important consideration when other development-related consents are being determined, including heritage, environmental, energy and transport consents. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Transport have consequently agreed that to the extent it accords with the relevant statutory provisions and national policies, decisions on these other consents should place particular weight on the potential economic benefits offered by an application. They will reflect this principle in relevant decisions that come before them and encourage their agencies and non departmental bodies to adopt the same approach for the consents for which those other bodies are directly responsible.
Private Members' Bills (2010-12 Session)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
In September, I informed the House that the Government had decided that the current Session of Parliament should run until the spring of 2012. This was in order to ensure a smooth transition towards five, 12-month Sessions over a Parliament, which would be a beneficial consequence of Parliament agreeing the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.
I have tabled a motion, which appears on the Order Paper today, which has the effect of providing extra days for the consideration of Private Members’ Bills in this Session. The extra dates to be provided are 9 September 2011, 21 October 2011, 25 November 2011 and 20 January 2012. Bills will have precedence on those days in accordance with the established order set out in paragraph (5) of Standing Order No.14.
The Government are also mindful that, due to the longer than usual current Session, extra provision will be necessary for Opposition days and Backbench Business days. No changes to Standing Orders are necessary to accommodate adequate extra provision in these two instances, and I will announce the provision of extra time through the weekly business statement as usual.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If there is a Division in the House the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2011.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the draft Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2011, and the draft Guardian’s Allowance (Northern Ireland) Up-rating Order 2011. In my view, the regulations and orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government inherited an exceptional fiscal challenge. It is important to sketch out the background to these important statutory instruments and to put them into proper context. The state is borrowing one pound in every four that it spends, and just paying the interest on the nation’s debt costs £43 billion—around £120 million a day. The unprecedented scale of the deficit has meant that the Government had to make tough choices in the June 2010 Budget and in the spending review about how taxpayers’ money is allocated.
We believe that fairness starts by taking the right decisions to tackle the deficit so that future generations are not burdened with unsustainable debts, meaning higher taxes and diminished public services. Tackling the deficit in a fair and responsible way means that those that can contribute do and those who are less able to do so are supported. Analysis shows that after combining the impact of tax, tax credit and benefit and public service spending changes announced by this Government, the top 20 per cent of households will make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit as a percentage of their income and benefits in kind from public services. That is a statement that was true after the Budget and spending round as of last year, which encompassed the measures we are talking about, but of course it remains true and confirmed in the numbers that came out with the Budget today.
The regulations and orders before the Committee put into effect a number of reforms to tax credits, announced in the June 2010 Budget and the spending review. These changes will ensure that we tackle the deficit in a way that is fair and ensures that tax credits are targeted at those who need them most. Tax credit elements which were previously uprated by the retail prices index will be uprated this year by the consumer prices index, apart from the basic and 30-hour elements of working tax credit, which will be frozen. The rate of guardian’s allowance will also be uprated by CPI. However, significant above-indexation increases to the child tax credit will help those households with children.
Under the current system, tax credits are available to families earning up to £58,000. If households have an increase in income up to £25,000 in a year, they can earn up to £83,000 and still benefit from tax credits. This means that people in the top income decile are eligible, which is unjustifiable within the current economic climate. Reforms to tax credits included within these regulations and orders mean that support for higher income households will be reduced by increasing the rate at which tax credits are withdrawn, while reducing the threshold at which tax credits are paid. Households will also no longer experience an increase in household income of up to £25,000 without their tax credit eligibility changing. Under the current system, around nine out of 10 families with children are eligible for tax credits. Once the tax credit changes have been introduced in April this year, seven out of 10 families will still be eligible for tax credits.
Spending on tax credits has increased from £18 billion in 2003-04 to an estimated £30 billion in 2010-11. The system of tax credits under the previous Government was not only unsustainable in fiscal terms; it was also unrealistic in terms of meeting its stated policy objectives. From 2004, progress on relative poverty stalled. However, the previous Government continued to pump money into the tax credit system. They spent more than £150 billion on tax credits since 2003.
Although a large proportion of tax credit spending was directed at children, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that meeting the 2020 child poverty target would require an extra £19 billion of welfare transfers. The previous Government had a static view of poverty, believing that it could be reduced, or even eradicated, by directing money at it. The way that child poverty is currently measured means that, perversely, reducing the income tax paid by millions of lower earners, or providing additional support to low-income pensioners, could push up the poverty line. This would increase the number of children calculated as being in poverty. We want to take a long-term, strategic view to tackling poverty, which is about more than just welfare transfers. This is not about moving families and children above an arbitrary line—where one day they are in poverty and the next they are not—but is about transforming their life chances.
The Prime Minister asked Frank Field and Graham Allen to undertake reviews on poverty and life chances. Findings from both reviews have fed into the child poverty strategy, which will be published shortly. While awaiting the conclusions of these reviews, the Government have used some of the savings from withdrawing child benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer to fund significant above-indexation increases in the child tax credit over the next two years. This means that the child tax credit will increase by £255 in 2011, benefiting 2.4 million of the poorest families. This increase is better targeted at low-income families and will ensure that the spending review will have no measurable impact on child poverty in the next two years.
As well as targeting financial support at low-income households, the spending review introduced a new fairness premium, which will fundamentally change the prospects of the poorest children by offering real opportunities to raise them out of poverty for the long term. The fairness premium is worth over £7.2 billion over the spending review period and will include a £2.5 billion premium to support the educational development of the poorest pupils. It also protects cash funding for Sure Start to support the poorest in early years and at every stage of their education.
Despite the last Government’s spending on tax credits, working-age poverty actually increased under Labour, as there are now more working-age adults in poverty than there were in 1997. The current welfare state too often traps people in dependency. Almost 2 million children are living in workless households. The spending review announced radical plans to reform the welfare state. The new universal credit, which will be introduced over two Parliaments, will replace the current complex system of means-tested working-age benefits with a single, streamlined payment. The universal credit, which will cut through the complexity of the existing benefits system, will ensure that work pays.
In that context, I commend these regulations and orders to the Committee.
Lord Newby
My Lords, in the context of the overall fiscal position in which we find ourselves, it is not surprising that we are having to make some pretty unpalatable changes to some tax credits. As the Minister has said, expenditure on tax credits rose in cash terms by two-thirds over the seven years from 2003. In the current environment, that is simply unsustainable.
Although there are some aspects of the changes that we find quite difficult—for example, reducing the proportion of reclaimable childcare is not something that we would have done willingly—other elements are long overdue. It is crazy that people earning £50,000 or £60,000 or even £70,000 have been able to claim an element of child tax credit. Of course, the concept that parents find themselves in financial stress when they have young children is not new; it is dealt with at great length in Malthus’s great essay on population, where he talks about how poverty comes to young families at the point when they have children. However, that was talking about an era in which most people were poor for the whole of their lives. That simply does not exist today. A circumstance in which nine out of 10 families were eligible for tax credit does not really have any sense. Even with the changes, some seven families out of 10 will continue to get tax credits. That certainly encompasses all those who could even vaguely be said to be in need.
The situation we now find ourselves in at this end of the income scale was exemplified to me by a colleague in another place yesterday, who was telling me that she had had a letter from a constituent grumbling that the changes to tax credits and child benefit meant that she and her family would no longer be able to have their second foreign holiday that year, and asking what the MP was going to do about it. I suspect she got a fairly shirty response, but many people at upper income levels have been regarding tax credits and child benefit as not necessary for the ordinary running of the family but for luxuries, so to see that curtailed in the overall scheme is very welcome.
Slightly down the track comes the really welcome introduction of the universal credit. Just as, at the top end, people are getting some benefits who, frankly, do not need them for the good functioning of their families, at the bottom end there are still huge disincentives around work and huge anger among people who are trying to make a living and do the right thing.
At the recent Lib Dem conference in Sheffield I went to get my papers from a kiosk in the shopping centre in the centre of Sheffield, and the young woman behind the kiosk asked rather aggressively what I was doing there. I said very timorously that I was at the Lib Dem conference. She said she was a Labour voter. I was prepared for a tirade about how flinty hearted we were and I got a tirade, but the tirade I got related to the fact that because she was a single mum with two young children she could only work part-time and earn only £6,000 a year and her sister, who was 28 and had never done a day’s work in her life, was getting more from the state. At this point her colleague in the kiosk joined in. They were so intent on telling me about this injustice in the system that everybody else who was trying just to buy a paper had to come up in a very shamefaced way so as not to interrupt this flow of invective, which was being directed at politicians generally. I was able to tell her that the universal benefit was on its way and thereafter life would look somewhat fairer from her perspective.
I have two questions for the Minister around these proposals today. The first relates to what he said about Sure Start. There has been an awful lot of noise about Sure Start. He said that the Government are protecting the cash funding for Sure Start. I know that every Liberal Democrat council is able to maintain Sure Start and I know some councils cannot. Can the Minister tell me why, if the Government are protecting the cash funding for Sure Start, some councils might be choosing to cut it?
Secondly, the whole area of child poverty is to be the subject, I believe, of a child poverty strategy document due for publication shortly. Under the terms of the Child Poverty Act it is due to be produced by the end of March. It is now almost the end of March and I would like the Minister’s assurance that that document will, indeed, be winging its way to us over the next few days.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I had thought that the problems with these statutory instruments would be that our contributions might be not so much after the Lord Mayor’s Show as coincident with it, as the Budget Statement was made today. The other place and all the media are concentrating on the 2011 Budget while here we are, engaging in a debate on instruments that relate to last year’s decisions. I therefore assumed that the Minister would stay fairly close to the technicalities of the instruments and that we were unlikely to engage in a substantial debate on the economy, but no such luck.
The Minister, not content with successive Thursday debates that string out ahead ad infinitum and in which he will regale the House with his perspective on the economy, has taken this rather modest measure as another opportunity to inveigh on those issues which, I suppose, pass for coalition home truths about the situation that we are in. Well, if we must engage so be it. I had not really come prepared for this but I have one or two obvious rejoinders to the noble Lord’s position ready to hand. I am not quite sure why he is not prepared to engage in the debate on how far and how fast, regarding deficit reduction. He presents the issues in terms of the inevitable: that slash and burn is the only response regarding support and the public contribution. Of course, that is because the British economy is very close to the Greek, the Irish and the Portuguese economy—teetering on the brink of utter collapse, with stupendous interest rates and the collapse of the known world. That is specific and special pleading.
The noble Lord rarely addresses an economy that is marginally more significant than the German or Irish economies by looking at the United States. If he looks at its response to this issue, the question is whether destroying so much of the support given at present will grievously affect demand. He is therefore stuck with the fact that the one word he did not mention at all is that which presently revolves around every conceivable contribution in the other place: namely, growth. The decline in growth predicted by the OECD is now confirmed by the figures that the Chancellor made in his Statement today. What does the noble Lord think that lower growth represents? It means more people unable to sustain themselves. I heard him lament the fact of working-age poverty. What on earth does he think will happen to that as unemployment rates in this country begin rapidly to increase?
We have not yet seen the burden of the cuts but, my goodness me, it is quite clear that the nation is already alert. It is not as if this date, 23 March, is not insignificant in the nation’s awareness of the implication of cuts. In three days, on 26 March, a very substantial proportion of our people will indicate that a Government who go too far, who reduce potential for growth and who massively increase unemployment and promote poverty can ill afford to parade the idea that there is no other way, when in fact other Governments—whose economies are at least as significant as ours—are pursuing very different strategies indeed. However, I did not come here for peroration. I came just to look at the gentle terms of this instrument. I thought it somewhat otiose to engage today in a debate on government policy when our youngers—and, if not our betters, perhaps our more committed—at the other end are involved in that exercise, debating the 2011 Budget while we are dealing with instruments that derive from last year’s Budget.
Within the terms of the instrument, I accept some aspects of the Government’s attention to the problems that beset the less well-off in our society. I appreciate the fact that there is an above-indexation increase in the child tax credit of £180 for next year and a little less the year after for those of very limited means. I respect the fact that there is some attention to the particular problems of those who are least well off in our society. I do not accept the Government’s position, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on child tax credits. I shall make the obvious point on the eradication of child poverty: it is a massive target. We all know the projection on how long it takes and how much it costs but, despite this gesture, the Minister never makes the slightest reference to the tremendous onslaught on child poverty which was the product of policies pursued over the past decade through many strategies, the effectiveness of which he is proposing to reduce. To make the most obvious point, what we now have enshrined in stone for the future under this Administration is one criterion and one index for how much uprating will occur. This is an uprating measure. The RPI, currently at 4.6 per cent, is buried and the CPI is now confirmed as the rate that will obtain across the benefits. It is now 3.1 per cent, or two-thirds of the RPI inflation rate, which many households would regard as a far more accurate definition of the challenges that they face in making ends meet.
I appreciate other aspects of the measure. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Newby, say that people should not expect to get tax credits if their income is over a certain amount. He can make that case if he wishes. He knows the outcry that has occurred as a result of the change from £50,000 to £40,000 in the threshold for credits. He knows very well that ordinary working families, on whatever income, budget according to their expected income and how they run their life. Significant government changes in this area cause distress. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, may regard that distress as synthetic. We shall see the response the nation makes to that significant change in tax credits.
The guardian’s allowance uprating is a minor aspect that reflects the fact that a very small number of beneficiaries are covered by these orders in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We should notice what indexation means at a certain level: just minuscule increases per week are represented by these figures. I am all too well aware that there are limitations on the public purse and that generosity from the Government—“tax giveaways”, the Chancellor said this morning—were not the order of the day. We understand that, and it is bound to be the case, but that should not alter the fact that we should appreciate that a failure by Government to take proper concern for welfare support could be a very grievous failure indeed. We are moving into a position where, without the slightest doubt, a greater number of our people will be plunged into hardship. The Government’s response, as evidenced by these statutory instruments, shows that the Government put deficit reduction as their supreme objective, at whatever cost to our community.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords. As is becoming a pattern here, we have had a small, focused and to-the-point discussion. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, did not appreciate my approach this afternoon. On other occasions, when I have gone perhaps to excessive lengths to point out every detail of measures, I did not always seem to be grasping his attention right through, so I thought I would try another attempt and go for the sunny uplands this afternoon, but it seems that that has not worked either. I shall have to try some other approach next time. I do not want to be drawn too much into the big picture because, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, we shall have a long debate tomorrow and another one next Thursday. However, I cannot entirely let his remarks go unanswered.
Every commentator, from the IMF to the OECD through to all the domestic commentators, has reiterated the fact that the Government need to stick to the clear deficit reduction plan. To be fair to the noble Lord, he recognises that, as he says that he understands that we cannot give away money through taxes or otherwise. I welcome his partial recognition of the reality. It is against the background of the situation last year and the background that still persists that we bring these measures forward.
Welfare spending now accounts for one-third of all public spending. As I said in my introduction, spending on tax credits has increased from £18 billion in 2003-04 to an estimated £30 billion in 2010-11. My noble friend Lord Newby made the point that in respect of what we are discussing this afternoon, it is unsustainable and, in significant respects, unfair. The reforms to tax credits outlined within these regulations and orders are fair and proportionate. They tackle the deficit in a way that ensures that tax credits are targeted at those who need them most. Again as my noble friend Lord Newby points out, it is in the broader context that the critical move to the universal credit over this and the next Parliament gets driven forward.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for recognising that we will use some of the savings from withdrawing child benefit from families with a higher-rate taxpayer to increase the child element of the child tax credit. That is important. It is an increase of a further £30 above indexation in 2011-12, and a further £50 above indexation in 2012-13, in addition to the above-indexation increases of £150 in 2011-12 and £60 in 2012-13 announced in the previous Budget.
While we are on indexation, I hesitate to take the opportunity to give a reminder to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who raised questions about RPI and CPI. As he says, it is correct that RPI is now 4.6 per cent. However, the previous Government were intending to uprate by applying RPI minus 1.5 per cent. Of course, 4.6 per cent less 1.5 per cent takes one back to 3.1 per cent. So, in practice, there is no difference in these rates between the old and the new policy.
I will get back to my noble friend on his specific question about funding for Sure Start because I want to make sure that I have my facts right. I certainly agree that if, under the flexibility and the money that councils are allowed, some councils are able to continue I am not sure why others cannot. I will check the details of that.
To conclude, I believe that reforms at the Budget and the spending review, of which these are an important element, have been carried out in a fair and responsible way. We have ensured that everyone who is able to contribute to the deficit does so, while those with the lowest incomes continue to be supported. The critical test is that, after combining the impact of tax, benefit and public services spending review changes, it is the highest quintile of earners who will make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit as a percentage of their income and benefits in kind. I commend these regulations and orders to the Grand Committee.
Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2011
Relevant documents: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2011.
Relevant documents: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
My Lords, these statutory instruments are necessary to support the implementation of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which will come into force on 6 April 2011. The Family Procedure Rules are being made as required by the Courts Act 2003, which gives power for new rules to be made for all family proceedings. This means that one unified set of procedures can be applied to all types of family proceedings in all types of courts dealing with such cases. The Courts Act provides that the rule-making power is to be exercised with a view to securing that the rules are both simple and simply expressed.
The Ministry of Justice and the Family Procedure Rule Committee—the body established to make the rules—have developed a set of rules to cover all family proceedings in the High Court, the county court and the family proceedings court. The new rules will bring a number of benefits, including modernisation of some language, a single unified code of practice for all family courts and, where appropriate, harmonisation of the procedure in family proceedings with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. In fact, the approach followed in the Family Procedure Rules is already being applied to adoption proceedings. The Family Procedure (Adoption) Rules 2005 used the new approach to support those proceedings. When the new Family Procedure Rules come into force on 6 April 2011, they will help fulfil the Government’s intention that the new approach should be extended to all family proceedings.
The two instruments we are considering today are critical to the operation of the new Family Procedure Rules. They ensure that the new rules will operate as intended, and that other enactments will refer appropriately to those rules. I hope that the Committee will support their approval. I will take each instrument in turn.
The Family Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 2011 makes amendments to other legislation in consequence of the coming into force of the Family Procedure Rules. For example, Article 6(b) of the order inserts a new subsection (3) into Section 54 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. That new subsection provides:
“In family proceedings a magistrates’ court may stay the whole or part of any proceedings or order either generally or until a specified date or event.”
This gives magistrates' courts the same power to stay—in effect, halt—proceedings that the High Court and county courts already have. As a result, the procedural rules referring to such stays in the Family Procedure Rules can apply to all courts dealing with family proceedings. The order also amends various enactments which currently refer to rules which are to be superseded by the Family Procedure Rules 2010. This means that, from 6 April 2011, those enactments will refer to the 2010 Rules or to specific provisions within them.
The Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011—the destination of appeals order, as it is known to its friends—makes various minor amendments to the routes of appeal. It provides that appeals from decisions made by a district judge of a county court will lie to a judge of that court and that appeals from decisions made by a district judge of the High Court, a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division or a costs judge will lie to a judge of the High Court. It puts in place provisions in existing rules regarding the destination of appeals from a district judge which would otherwise be lost as those rules are replaced by the Family Procedure Rules. The new destination of appeals order consolidates these provisions with the provisions from an existing destination of appeals order, so that the routes of appeal in family proceedings are dealt with in one place. This is in line with our policy of simplifying the way in which rules for family proceedings are presented. Part 30, “Appeals”, of the practice direction that supplements the Family Procedure Rules sets out all the routes of appeal and the practice steps that people will need to take, which will provide considerable assistance to a person who wants to appeal against a court’s decision.
These orders have already been debated in the other place and have been approved. Members were generally supportive of the Family Procedure Rules and approved these provisions which support the implementation of those rules. The two statutory instruments are important to make it possible for the new Family Procedure Rules to operate as intended, and to ensure that other legislation is properly amended in consequence of the coming into force of those rules. The rules will bring considerable benefits to people involved in family proceedings. I hope that noble Lords will approve these two draft orders so that the benefits of the new rules can be fully achieved.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, we plainly welcome the move towards uniformity of procedures among the High Court, the county court and the magistrates’ court and the move to a single code of practice and harmonisation where possible, although it is not always completely possible, between family proceedings and other civil proceedings under the CPR. I particularly welcome the provisions that will give magistrates’ courts the power to stay proceedings and to make orders for costs in a way that they have not been able to do so in the past.
Also of considerable importance is the move to give magistrates’ courts the power to make an order of disclosure against non-parties. The lack of such a provision for the magistrates’ courts has been, and is, capable of giving rise to delay. When witnesses turn up, the documents are not in court and there has to be an adjournment in order for them to be obtained. For that provision to be effective, it should be borne in mind that the burden is on solicitors and litigants to ensure that they use the order and the provision by applying for orders for the production of documents in good time so that, when matters come for a hearing, all the documents are before the court.
The destination of appeals order is also extremely helpful in dividing appeals from the junior judges in the High Court to High Court judges from appeals from junior judges in the county courts to county court judges. However, one further point that I would make, which is a matter for listing officers rather than for the legislation, is that those of us who practise in family proceedings will well know that we have extremely experienced district judges at both levels, but we also have a number of rather less experienced deputy High Court judges and deputy county circuit judges sitting as circuit judges. It is a matter of importance that we do not list appeals from very experienced district judges before very much less experienced deputies at the senior level. That is not a point for the order, but it is a point of some importance in practice.
Lord Jones
My Lords, I support the instruments wholeheartedly. I thank the Minister for his succinct introduction, but I have several queries.
Paragraph 4, “Legislative Context”, of the helpful Explanatory Memorandum to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011 states:
“appeals in non-adoption cases from the decisions of a district judge of the High Court and from a district judge of a county court would be to the Court of Appeal”.
Is the Minister able to define these differences? Is there a district judge of a magistrates’ court that would be separate from those instances on which I have asked for clarification?
Paragraph 8, “Consultation outcome”, of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“A total of 45 responses were received to this consultation”.
I thought this query worthy of being raised because, when one considers the vast number of magistrates’ courts, 45 seems rather a small number. In the spirit of debate, one is perhaps entitled to query and to seek reassurance that the consultation process has been widespread, comprehensive and effective. I presume that, of those 45 responses, the Magistrates’ Association of England and Wales put in its views and was consulted. It is reasonable to ask what form of consultation existed with that very distinguished body. Included in the 45 responses, is it reasonable to assume that the association for magistrates' clerks and executives—whatever name it now has—made a major submission? I would be surprised if it did not. Perhaps answers can be given in these proceedings.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and I congratulate the Minister for the succinct way in which he put these orders. It is not always easy to put orders before the Committee so succinctly, but he has managed it with great élan this afternoon. It is very good to have the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, with his experience of the family courts, joining in the debate even on fairly uncontested orders. His experience will be very valuable to the House. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Jones for his staunch defence of the magistracy and the detailed questions that he asked about the orders. Let me say straight away that we do not oppose the orders at all; indeed, they seem to demand support and to make sense. As I understand it, they had general support from the other place and from the outside world.
The whole area of family law policy is being examined by the Norgrove committee as we speak, of course. We began that in government and the present Government have wisely carried it on. It is an important committee; we look forward very much to its report and the Government’s decisions on that report. Some of us feel that our family law needs to be brought up to present times and that many changes could usefully be made, but that is not the issue for today. These orders deal with procedure and rules and are a vital and much respected part of our legal system, which is widely—and rightly—admired elsewhere. Our procedures and rules must be known, exact and kept up to date; these orders certainly do that.
There is an interesting argument around family proceedings courts in the magistrates’ courts. I understand that the orders give the equivalent power to those courts as they do to the county court and the High Court. That is no doubt a good thing, but will the more serious cases still go to either the county court or, if they are even more serious, the High Court? I am sure that it is still the position; it ought to be, and I would not want any change to it.
My query is about Article 38 in the Family Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order. This is not a trick question, and the noble Lord is welcome to answer at his leisure if he wants. The Explanatory Note states that:
“The amendment removes the reference to the exercise of the power to transfer where there is a real risk that a party to proceedings may lack mental capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as the FPR now make provision (in Part 15) for protected parties in relation to all three levels of court including the magistrates’ courts”.
Do I take it that, where that issue has arisen until now, the family proceedings court has not been seen fit to be an appropriate venue or forum for those cases? Obviously, the cases are made more difficult if someone lacks mental capacity within the meaning of the Act. Is it really appropriate that those cases be heard in the family proceedings court?
Apart from that, we support the orders and are grateful to the Minister.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the House is extremely generous in its comments about my command of the subject. I am not a lawyer, so I feel like a lion in a den of Daniels when I look round and see the contributors. I am grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, about the Norgrove review. We hope that Mr Norgrove will give an interim report in March and his final report in the autumn. I agree with the noble Lord that it will be a useful opportunity to review family law.
I also agree that we will be well aided in that review by the presence of my noble friend Lord Marks, who has already made his impact both in the Chamber and here in the Moses Room. His contribution today might be better read by the practitioners than by the House, in that he said that due notice for documents required would speed up and simplify processes. In looking at our criminal justice system over the last 10 months in my limited experience, I have frequently been amazed at how easy it is to disrupt the smooth running of the system. I hope that we can make the system work more efficiently. I am sure that his fellow practitioners will duly note his opinion about the value of the experienced district judges compared with others.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked whether the destination of appeals order will apply to appeals from district judge magistrates’ courts, and whether magistrates’ courts have been consulted. The draft order relates to family proceedings in the High Court and county court only and does not apply to magistrates’ courts. On the wider issue that he raised, both the Magistrates’ Association and the magistrates’ clerks body responded to the consultation and were fully consulted. The draft destination of appeals order applies to all family proceedings, including adoption proceeding, and revokes the 2005 destination of appeals order. If that does not cover the points raised, I will gladly find out more.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, widened his remarks a little more to ask about the magistracy. That gives me an opportunity to say that we have carried out a rationalisation of the number of magistrates’ courts. I believe that we have retained the essential strength of magistrates’ courts and of the magistracy, which is their localism. This is the 650th anniversary of the magistracy, which we will be celebrating later this year in Westminster Hall. On the attitude of the Ministry of Justice, my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is certainly looking very actively at how magistrates can be given more work—not less—and take on more responsibilities. We will be looking at that in various pieces of legislation later in the year.
Regarding the query on Article 38, prior to the coming into force of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, magistrates’ courts did not have the power to appoint such representatives. Only the High Court and county courts had such powers. However, under the 2010 Rules, magistrates’ courts will be able to do so. Therefore, the fact that a person lacks capacity will not require a transfer of proceedings so that a representative can be appointed. It follows that it is appropriate to omit sub-paragraph (h) from Article 15(1) of the Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008. The Family Procedure Rule Committee considers that it is appropriate that magistrates’ courts should have these powers to avoid unnecessary transfers. However, complex cases can still be transferred in accordance with the allocation order. I have taken note of the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised, which I hope is covered by that assurance about complex cases.
I hope that my response has covered the points that were raised during the debate—if it does not, perhaps colleagues would remind me. Like others who have spoken, I think that the order provides for a welcome consolidation of the courts and a welcome increase in responsibility for the magistrates’ courts, and I hope that, as in the other place, we can adopt these measures.
Family Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Family Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 2011.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) (Amendment) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) (Amendment) Order 2011.
Relevant documents: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, never underestimate the value of the Whip because, but for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Northover, I would have been well into this speech and would not have moved the Motion on the previous order. I am most grateful to her.
Lord McNally
The draft order before us today amends an order made in 2000 with regard to the data protection rights of individuals in the context of social work. Specifically, the order brings the data protection obligations of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in Wales—CAFCASS Cymru—into line with those of its counterparts in England.
The purpose of the draft order is to ensure that officers of CAFCASS Cymru are exempted from the requirement to disclose personal data to an individual—known as a “data subject” in the Data Protection Act 1998—when they consider that to do so would be likely to prejudice the conduct of social work by causing serious mental or physical harm to the individual or a third party. As a result of an order made in 2005, CAFCASS Cymru’s counterparts in England can already use this partial exemption when replying to requests for personal data made under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. In 2000, when the DPA came into force, the Government brought forward such an exemption by order, which could be relied upon where the disclosure of the information would prejudice the carrying out of social work by causing harm to an individual or a third party.
I should explain that, even without this exemption, in certain situations data controllers may be able to rely on the principle that information shared with a social worker was given in confidence. Therefore, it might not be fair, or even lawful, to release the information, as to do so would be in contravention of the first data protection principle in the DPA. However, the social work exemption in the 2000 order gave a strong, certain and very explicit legal basis to withhold information and ensure that social work is not prejudiced. The schedule to the 2000 order listed those organisations and functions to which the exemption could be applied. This important exemption—the subject of our debate today—ensures that individuals’ rights to see their personal data do not inadvertently prevent social work from being carried out effectively.
With that background in mind, I will turn to the reason for the order before us today. In 2005 an order was approved by Parliament which added certain functions of CAFCASS in addition to those in the 2000 order. The 2005 order allowed CAFCASS to apply the social work exemption in appropriate cases. As Members will know, CAFCASS works with children and their families who are involved in family proceedings, and advises the courts on what it considers to be in the child’s best interests. Matters in which CAFCASS may become involved include where parents are separating or divorcing and cannot agree on arrangements for their child. The role that CAFCASS officers perform means that they routinely process information related to social work.
On 1 April 2005, the functions of CAFCASS in Wales were devolved to the Welsh Assembly, making CAFCASS in Wales—CAFCASS Cymru—a separate organisation to that of CAFCASS in England. Unfortunately, this was not taken into account at the time of the 2005 order, and therefore CAFCASS Cymru has not been able to apply this exemption, although its counterpart in England has. As a result, the intention behind the 2005 order that this exemption should apply across England and Wales, as agreed by Parliament, has not been fulfilled. It is important that this inconsistency in the subject access regime between England and Wales is rectified and that CAFCASS Cymru is able to use this exemption as was originally intended.
CAFCASS Cymru has told us that, between 2007 and 2009, there were 23 cases where it would have considered using this exemption, had it been available. In these cases, CAFCASS Cymru relied on the principle, mentioned at the start of my remarks, that there would have been a reasonable expectation that information that children share with a family court adviser would remain confidential and therefore would not disclose the information because it could give rise to an actionable breach of confidence. However, this approach has not been tested, either by the courts or by the Information Commissioner. The extension of this exemption to cover CAFCASS Cymru will provide it with parity and will ensure a stronger, more certain and explicit legal basis to withhold information if CAFCASS Cymru considered that this would be likely to prejudice the carrying out of social work, by causing serious harm to the physical or mental health of a child.
I want to emphasise here that the Government take the issue of individuals’ rights to access their personal data very seriously. Just as we have made clear our commitment to transparency in terms of public data and official information, we are also committed to upholding people’s rights to see what information is being processed about them in both public and private sectors. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice’s recent call for evidence sought views on how the current subject access regime is working. Responses to this confirmed that individuals see this as an important right and that data controllers by and large take their responsibilities in this area seriously. But there can be no doubt that in certain, specific circumstances, such as those we are considering today, releasing information may not be in the interest of an individual, or indeed of others, including the children of the individual concerned, or those involved in protecting them.
I should make clear to noble Lords that a right of appeal remains for those individuals who believe that a subject access request has not been complied with fully. As with any subject access request, there is a right of appeal through the courts under Section 7(9) of the Data Protection Act. Alternatively, individuals may approach the Information Commissioner, who may investigate whether the data controller has complied with the obligations under the Act. In addition, this order, should it be agreed, will add employees and contractors of CAFCASS Cymru, acting in their professional capacity, to the list of “relevant persons” in the 2000 social work order, as is the case with CAFCASS in England.
Section 7 of the Data Protection Act acknowledges that there may be times when the personal data of another person may be released as the result of a subject access request. In most circumstances, the data controller will need to seek the consent of that other person or assess the reasonableness of disclosure before giving out the data. However, the personal data of a “relevant person”, as defined by the 2000 order, is not subject to these conditions of consent or reasonableness. This means that CAFCASS Cymru must disclose personal data given by its employees in the course of their professional duties if this is required to provide the data subject with personal data under the terms of a subject access request. Consent and the reasonableness test are not factors in the disclosure.
A concern was raised in another place about how relevant persons will be protected from harm by having to release their personal data to others. It is important to remember that this draft order would allow CAFCASS Cymru to withhold information if social work was to be prejudiced by causing harm to the individual or any third party. This could include those who work for CAFCASS Cymru. CAFCASS in England, which must already adhere to this when replying to subject access requests, has told us that it is not aware of any harm caused to employees. In all cases so far it is only the name of the employee that has been released and it is highly unlikely that the individual making the request will not already know the name of that person—most likely to be a social worker—who has been dealing with their case. As such, it would probably raise more suspicion if the name of the employee in question was redacted and therefore the name is almost always released. Officials in CAFCASS Cymru have said that their approach would be similar to that of CAFCASS in England. Again, this provision would bring CAFCASS Cymru into line with CAFCASS in England to ensure consistency in the two bodies' approach to releasing personal data.
The principles about the need to maintain a strong subject access regime while protecting individuals were agreed by all parties in 2005 and these principles still hold firm. In any case, there is no reason why they should apply in England but not in Wales. Including CAFCASS Cymru in the list of organisations able to apply the exemption will not only protect individuals and ensure that social work can be carried out effectively; it will also ensure coherence and consistency between the organisations in England and Wales, and correct the error made in 2005. I therefore commend this draft order to the Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I would not necessarily agree to the principle that something that applies in England must necessarily apply in Wales. That is the whole point of devolution, which I am sure that the noble Lord has foremost in his mind. However, I support this provision.
The noble Lord referred to the call for evidence. He made a statement in July 2010 about the call for evidence, which he said was to be,
“assessed and used to inform the UK’s position in negotiations on a new EU instrument for data protection, which are expected to begin in early 2011”.
He also said that there would be a,
“Post-Implementation Review of the DPA, with a view to publishing a full impact assessment by the end of the year”.
Have those time limits been complied with? I was not able to find anything to indicate that they had. What is the position in relation to the negotiations with the EU for a new instrument in this field?
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister again for explaining these orders—perhaps not quite as succinctly as in the previous case, but I understand why—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for raising the point that he has raised.
Of course, whenever exemptions are made to data protection regarding people’s fundamental right to know what data are held about them, how those data are used and what safeguarding processes there are, it is right that they should be very carefully examined. This order has been examined very carefully in another place and I have read the transcript of those proceedings. On that occasion, the matter was tested by a number of questions, particularly about the frequency of exemption already in place for England. However, Members of the other place were content and satisfied with the answers that were given; in my view, we should also be content with the order and with the way in which the Minister has outlined the order today.
There are occasions when it is not just right but important that exemptions are made to the normal rights under data protection legislation. That is common sense and is appropriate. What makes the exemption satisfactory is that, first, there is a right of appeal, which is very important in our view. Secondly, it is absolutely right that social workers, who are not very well paid but who do a pretty demanding job that is absolutely crucial and much underrated by the rest of society, should get the protection that they deserve, and anything that can make their difficult task easier should be done by Parliament, if possible. I believe that that is what these exemptions have done so far in England and will now do in Wales. Our view is that this order is sensible, reasonable and absolutely appropriate.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am sorry that my explanation of this instrument was succinct. I turned over in my mind whether to adopt the attitude exemplified by my noble friend Lord Sassoon and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in the earlier debate by reducing the issue to some party barn-storming by announcing that this was the coalition cleaning up a mess left by the previous Government, but I have been around this place long enough to know that we will probably make similar mistakes in legislation.
Lord McNally
This just shows how these matters are dealt with in the justice system. I also note that, as one QC eased himself out of the Benches, another QC eased himself in. I deal with these matters with great trepidation.
On our call for evidence, the preliminary result was published in January of this year and I shall ensure that my noble friend receives a copy. We are undertaking an interesting exercise in trying to future-proof as much as we can the whole of data protection. The call for evidence will be extremely useful in making what we hope will be a positive contribution to the review of the European directive. The capacity of data protection of the exchange of data has changed dramatically, even in this still young century. Therefore, the need to take a new look at data protection is extremely timely. We shall be making a contribution to the review going on in Europe and we shall also review exemptions and applications under the Data Protection Act as part of that process.
Perhaps I might associate myself with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. One was that it is important that there should be a right to access data. Successive Governments have now been committed to greater transparency, but there have to be safeguards along with that. I also therefore associate myself very much with his tribute to social workers—a group sometimes quite outrageously pilloried in our popular press—who carry out extremely difficult responsibilities on behalf of our whole society. If they are to carry out such responsibilities, the kind of protection that this order provides for them is no more than they deserve. Certainly, in this case it should apply both in England and Wales.
Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers the amendments proposed by the Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011 and the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2011. There is only one major change required, which concerns the 2002 chemicals regulations. These regulations implement an international Ospar Convention commitment, which requires operational uses and discharges of chemicals to be the subject of an application and assessment process. Under the system established in those regulations, the use and discharge of chemicals during operational activities relating to oil and gas exploration, production and decommissioning is only allowed in accordance with the terms of a permit. The types of chemicals for which permits might be granted include, for example, detergents used to clean rigs and hydraulic fluids used to control well-heads and subsea valves.
At the time of bringing them into force, the 2002 chemicals regulations were considered to contain powers relevant to all chemicals emissions. It has since become clear, through discussing an escape of chemicals with an operator, that the regulations do not cover unintentional events such as chemical spills or leaks that occur through accidents or faulty items of equipment that are not functioning within their intended design.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
My Lords, a Division has been called in the House. We will resume in 10 minutes.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am grateful we can continue.
Consequently, unintentional spills or leaks cannot be subject to enforcement action. The purpose, therefore, of the main amendment is to extend the scope of the 2002 chemicals regulations by creating a new distinction between a discharge and a release. Put simply, a discharge will be an intentional emission of an offshore chemical. Such an emission will be lawful if it is made in line with the terms of a permit, which will be granted only if the planned emission does not pose an environmental threat. Any unintentional emission of an offshore chemical will be treated as a release and will be unlawful. This will ensure that unauthorised emissions can be liable to enforcement action, including prosecution. This creates a new offence.
Nevertheless, the creation of a new offence does not mean that there will be a large number of extra prosecutions. Indeed, it is expected that there will be very few as the regulations allow other enforcement actions to be taken before prosecution. Our focus remains on preventing incidents through our robust environmental assessment and inspection regime. Oil spills and leaks are already covered by the 2005 oil regulations, so I should stress that the concept of release is being introduced by the oil regulations 2011 solely to ensure conformity with the chemicals regulations 2011.
The draft regulations also make a number of other changes to the regulatory framework. For example, the 2011 oil regulations include a new definition of offshore installation that encompasses all pipelines, some of which were not previously covered. The chemicals regulations already covered pipelines but, for the sake of conformity, the 2011 chemicals regulations contain the same revised definition.
In addition, the enforcement provisions of the existing chemicals and oil regulations have been strengthened by the amending regulations to allow DECC inspectors to require preventive action to stop spills occurring in the first place. Another change is to the information-gathering powers so that information can now be obtained from a wider range of persons and in respect of a wider range of incidents that might affect the marine environment. Other minor changes are being made by the 2011 chemicals and oil regulations, which will, for example, simplify the process for renewing and varying permits or transferring them to a new permit holder. These changes create even more consistency between the two regimes making them easier to administer and for operators to comply with.
We all hope that the new prosecution powers will never have to be used. Nonetheless, I believe that extending the scope of the offences is essential to provide strengthened enforcement and pollution prevention measures to my department. These regulations will benefit the marine environment through improved enforcement powers. They also introduce more consistency to the existing regulatory regimes which will assist industry compliance. I commend these instruments to the Committee.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his robust explanation of these regulations which are clearly important in terms of environmental sustainability in the north-east Atlantic area. I want to explore the Ospar agreement a little. It is very important to us and will be critical in carbon capture and storage, which I shall not go into this afternoon. I am interested to understand how we are doing this to comply with a decision by Ospar. Do decisions by contracting parties to Ospar have to be unanimous or are they by qualified majority voting? What incident brought to the attention of the Government the fact that the previous legislation was defective in some way? Listening to the Minister’s explanation, I was surprised that there has to be this difference between a discharge, and I have already forgotten what the other noun was, but never mind. Will the Minister confirm that other contracting parties to the Ospar agreement—the Explanatory Notes mention the harmonised mandatory control system—are fully complying with that decision, as we are attempting to do?
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for introducing these offshore activities regulations. It is obviously eminently sensible that the pollution prevention and control regulations be updated to correct a deficiency, simplify and create more consistency across the two regimes and make compliance with regulatory requirements easier to understand. In addition, information-gathering powers have been strengthened so that information can be obtained from a wider range of persons in relation to a wider range of incidents capable of affecting the environment.
It must be correct that all unauthorised emissions—discharges and releases—are liable to enforcement action, including prosecution. It must also be correct to allow inspectors to require preventive action to stop spills occurring in the first place. When these regulations were debated in the other place on 1 March, the Minister gave the context of spills recorded over recent years. Between 2005 and 2009, chemical spills averaged 157 notifications per year, totalling 735 tonnes, none of which posed an environmental threat, with chemicals being defined in their broadest sense and including substances such as brine. Between 2005 and 2009, oil spills averaged 283 notifications per year, totalling 51 tonnes, 6 tonnes of which were crude oil, with the remainder being diesel and hydraulic fluid, none of which posed an environmental threat. The Minister added that if the chemical releases deficiency had not existed, another three incidents would have been liable to enforcement action, although it is tempting to ask whether the department can be sure that that is all there would have been if by the new definition a release was not then notifiable. Is the department confident that its knowledge of operations is exhaustive in this respect?
What does this figure of spills mean? Does it include only unauthorised emissions, or does it also include permit releases by agreement, which therefore do not result in an offence? If it is only the former, will the Minister give us the comparable figures on emissions that have occurred through permits? This will allow us to appreciate the balance between authorised discharges and unintended releases and the totality of all emissions. I also understand that permit applications are not granted where it is thought that operators should be able to operate without an emission. In other words, permits should not be applied for to cover possible discharges. Have there been such occasions? If a permit application was refused, has there subsequently been a release?
Will the Minister give us an understanding of how the enforcement agency—presumably the Environment Agency, but perhaps also the Health and Safety Executive—goes about its enforcement role? With the number of notifications of spills of chemicals and from the oil industry, not all spills would have resulted in a prosecution. In notification, what is the typical response? The numbers seem to suggest that this is a frequent, almost daily, occurrence. Does this lead to an element of complacency? Are these spills analysed to see whether action could be taken to reduce the amount? I am sure the industry is tireless in its pursuit of perfection, but an understanding of the interplay between the regulators and the relevant industries might be enlightening.
These regulations are brought forward with the recent events in the Gulf of Mexico fresh in our minds. We debated this situation on 16 December when the differences between the two regulatory regimes were explored and noted. The Minister rightly praised the UK industry for its high safety standards. In response to the gulf disaster, the industry set up the oil spill prevention and response advisory group, OSPRAG. Will the Minister update us on any developments that have occurred in its deliberations following various reports on the disaster by the congressional inquiries?
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I, too, would be interested to understand what would be the prosecuting authority. Under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, I would have thought that it would not be the Environment Agency but the Marine Management Organisation. I would be interested in that clarification.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I did not realise that such an SI would have so many incisive questions associated with it. I shall do my best to plough through them in the technical scope that they require. I will not take them in any particular order, but I shall immediately turn to the Gulf of Mexico. It is not a subject for discussion under these regulations. Clearly, a lot of future consideration needs to be taken into account as a result of the event. We are not at that point yet, but in various debates we have readily established that the UK has a safety record which is second to none.
Moving on to who is responsible for overseeing these regulations, in DECC we have our offshore environmental inspectorate which reviews and assesses all spills and reports to ensure that the operators take action where appropriate to respond to any spill. It is very much within our own department and we work closely with Oil & Gas UK and the various trade associations.
The point behind these regulations is that there obviously have been discharges. They were provoked by a modest discharge in the north North Sea from a chemical pipeline where an element of leakage and spillage was found that was not technically covered by the regulations. We have acted accordingly to embrace that sort of incident to ensure that the excellent environmental safety record that we maintain continues.
Perhaps I may provide the statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, wants in writing rather than go through them now. I think that they are a slight sideshow to the real effect here, which is to make sure that we have got all the areas of concern covered. I apologise for jumping around the questions a bit. The noble Lord also asked whether these regulations refer to carbon capture and storage, for example. I can confirm that they do. Now that I am in the middle of negotiating the demonstration project, it is very important that this is taken into account as, indeed, are gas storage and pipelines.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly asked about Ospar’s decision. It must be unanimous. North Atlantic states are involved in that decision, and it is then transposed into UK law. He also asked whether these regulations extend previous ones. They do because we are broadening the scope. In answer to the question on the Marine Management Organisation, it is DECC inspectors, as I mentioned earlier.
This is a very technical clause—as you can imagine it is far too technical for me—but I hope we have dealt with a number of the questions, but because of the technical nature there might be one or two areas I have not covered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is a great technician in this area. I am happy to answer in writing—actually I prefer my officials to do so because I do not have a clue what I am writing about—and I hope noble Lords will support the two sets of draft regulations. I commend these two instruments to the Committee.
Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, this is a slightly more inspiring subject than the last one, I must admit. The changes brought about by this order are essential to ensure that the mechanism continues to operate effectively and efficiently. We have committed to being the “greenest Government ever”. A key part of this is our drive to meeting our EU target of generating 15 per cent of all our energy from renewables by 2020. I appreciate that this target is challenging and ambitious. It will require a fivefold increase from the 2009 levels in overall renewable electricity across electricity, heat and transport. Specifically for the electricity sector, which the renewables obligation is designed to support, we will need 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our electricity to come from renewables by 2020—a significant increase from the 6.7 per cent generated in 2009.
We are making good progress, however. We are on track to meet the first interim target of generating 4 per cent of our energy from renewables by 2011-12 and we currently have 25 gigawatts in the renewable electricity pipeline. A strong spending review settlement reaffirmed our commitment to achieving the target with the £200 million provided for developing low-carbon technologies, including £60 million for offshore wind manufacturing infrastructure at coastal sites. That is just one example of the investment we are making to ensure we reach our goal. Since 2002, the renewables obligation has been the Government’s main mechanism for incentivising investment in large-scale renewables. In that time it has succeeded—and I pay credit to the previous Government—in more than tripling the level of renewable electricity in the UK, and it currently supports around 6.3 gigawatts of accredited capacity.
This order introduces three main changes to the RO: offshore wind phasing, the extension of biomass sustainability reporting and implementation of mandatory sustainability criteria for bioliquids. These amendments will ensure that the RO mechanism can continue to build on what it has already achieved. Offshore wind phasing has the potential to play a highly significant role in achieving our renewables targets. In a November 2010 Ernst & Young report, the UK was rated number one in the world for its attractiveness to the offshore wind industry and we want to ensure we capitalise on that potential.
The order will therefore allow offshore wind developers accrediting after 31 March 2011 to phase the support they receive under the RO, with each phase receiving the full 20 years of RO support. This will ensure that offshore wind developers are not adversely affected by the long construction periods of such projects and the issues of seasonality involved with building in a marine environment. Developers will be able to register up to five phases of turbines, over a maximum of five years, with a requirement to register a minimum of turbines equivalent to at least 20 per cent of the accredited installed capacity of the station in the first phase to ensure that maximum deployment is brought forward as quickly as possible.
Biomass, too, has a key role to play in enabling us to achieve our targets with the potential for around 30 per cent of our overall target coming from biomass power and heat. However, we need to ensure that in meeting our targets we do so in a way that protects our environment and is sustainable. We are therefore introducing mandatory sustainability criteria for generators using solid biomass and biogas. This will require a minimum 60 per cent greenhouse gas emission saving for electricity generation using solid biomass and biogas. In addition, the criteria will place general restrictions on using materials sourced from land with a high biodiversity value or high carbon stock.
However, we want to limit the burden these criteria place on generators and, as such, a two-year transition phase will apply. Mandatory reporting against the criteria will be required from April this year, with eligibility for biomass and biogas to receive support under the RO being linked to meeting the criteria from April 2013. This will allow generators time to familiarise themselves with the criteria and reporting process before the criteria are explicitly linked to ROCs.
We are also conscious of not unfairly burdening small generators. Therefore, while generators over 50 kilowatts will still be required to report against the criteria, all generators below 1 megawatt will be excluded from the full scope of the scheme and will not need to comply with the criteria to qualify for ROCs from 2013. In addition, the sustainability criteria will not apply to the use of biomass and biogas made from waste, landfill gas or sewage gas.
Concerns about sustainability are not present just here in the UK but have similarly been reflected at European level. Therefore, the final amendment brought about by this order is the introduction of sustainability criteria for generators using bioliquids, in line with our requirement to transpose mandatory sustainability standards for bioliquids in the 2009 European renewable energy directive. From 1 April this year, we will require electricity generated using bioliquids to meet the criteria set out in the directive in order to be eligible for ROCs. To demonstrate compliance, generators will need to provide Ofgem with evidence that the bioliquid meets the sustainability criteria, and there is a requirement for this evidence to be independently audited. We will open the RO to bioliquids partially derived from fossil fuel, such as biodiesel, given that it is eligible under the directive, providing those bioliquids can meet the sustainability criteria. However, ROCs will be awarded on the biomass portion of its energy content only.
Concerning the devolved Administrations, the changes we are introducing apply to England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland are bringing in separate but complementary orders that will work together to create a UK renewables obligation. I can confirm that the changes I have set out before you today have been subject to the European state aid approval process, for which, I am pleased to announce, clearance was granted in early February.
This Government are, of course, committed to supporting renewables investment. We will therefore maintain the RO by protecting investments made under it and are also consulting on the best means to transition from the RO to the new support mechanism introduced through electricity market reform, on which we have just finished our consultation. We will be advising about it later. The changes being introduced to the RO by way of the order being debated will therefore ensure that it continues to operate in an effective manner for those protected investments. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Reay
I shall say a word or two about this order. In itself, it is not very significant or pernicious and, given that these subsidies for offshore wind-generating stations are going to be paid in any case, I have no objection to them being paid in phases as the order provides. However, I strongly object to the underlying policy requiring these subsidies to be paid in the first place. Mostly, I find myself in opposition to onshore wind farms, which are of course ferociously opposed from one end of the country to the other—not by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but by many others. Besides ruining the lives of some who live in close proximity to them, they do irreparable damage to our wonderful rural landscapes.
Offshore wind is obviously less offensive in both those respects, although I sometimes feel that Turner, for example, would not be too pleased to see how some of the estuaries and wild foreshores he lovingly painted have been desecrated and had their romance and natural appeal, as in the Solway Firth, systematically degraded by this industrial intrusion. However, the factors I wish to emphasise are their uselessness and expense.
As a result of the harsh weather we have experienced in recent winters, it has been brought home to virtually everyone in the country that when the demand for electricity is at its very highest, the contribution from wind power is at its lowest. In fact, it may be close to zero for days at a time. Therefore, we must always be able to supply all the electricity we might ever require—it is required at the moment—by other means. Nor is the contribution from offshore wind produced more efficiently than that from onshore wind; far from it.
Last year, the load factor for offshore wind—the percentage of installed capacity that is generating over the year—fell, at 26 per cent, just below that for onshore wind. So much for the fatuous claim, which is sometimes made by Ministers when attempting to justify their scheme of surrounding these islands with a ring of turbines, that wind is one of our great natural assets. I calculate from the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics that wind power contributed somewhat less than 3 per cent of the electricity generated last year in the UK. I should think not much more than 1 per cent was from offshore wind. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could confirm or correct that figure, as it does not seem to be separated off in that digest of statistics.
Moreover, that miserable achievement is only possible thanks to the subsidies for offshore wind, which have now been raised to twice the level paid for onshore wind. That requirement is hardly surprising, given the obviously far greater difficulties in constructing and maintaining turbines in deep salt water rather than on land. The effect of the subsidy, paid for ultimately by the electricity consumer, is that the offshore electricity producer receives no less than three times the market rate for all the electricity he produces, and is guaranteed that rate for 20 years. What is the installed capacity of all existing commissioned and/or accredited wind turbines today, and what amount of subsidy are they guaranteed for the rest of their lives, in aggregate, assuming that current load factors continue? If my noble friend is not able to answer that question this afternoon, I shall table it as a Written Question.
I have recently read the renewables obligation annual report for 2009-10. It is an interesting document, but I can hardly recommend it to noble Lords for light reading. The ROC system is one of the most sublimely complex and opaque subsidy systems ever devised by the bureaucratic mind. No doubt that very fact gives it a certain political value. From it and from ministerial answers to Written Questions, I think I have gleaned that the cost of the ROC system last year was approximately £1.4 billion and that the share in that of offshore wind amounted to approaching £200 million. Could my noble friend confirm those figures? If so, could he say what he expects them to be this year?
One thing is for sure, that the intention of Her Majesty’s Government—hell-bent as they are on achieving their impossible renewable energy targets—is that these figures should expand massively in the years to come. In answer to a Written Question in this House in January, the Minister gave his department's estimate that by 2020 the subsidy cost for the ROC scheme would be more than £5 billion a year. I believe that the Government should do what the Dutch Government have announced they intend to do, which is to remove all subsidies from offshore wind and, in so doing, abandon their previous renewable energy target. By contrast, our Government still pursue a policy which will ensure that more of our industry departs overseas, that ever more people sadly plunge into fuel poverty and that the return to the age of freezing in the dark is brought closer. For those reasons, it is with a heavy heart that I witness the adoption of this ostensibly harmless amendment order.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I do not think I will reply to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but I agree with him profoundly that wind turbines are fantastic and are a great asset to much of the countryside for visitors to Cornwall. However, there are issues for those who live near them which we must recognise, although once they are there I do not think people notice them too much.
I want to concentrate on something completely different. I welcome the efforts by the Government and by the Minister to ensure that the issue of sustainability of biomass fuels is taken on board and is concentrated on. Two or three years ago, we found that biofuels in the transport area were the great salvation for decarbonising our economy but because of the many valid issues around food security and rising food prices, the substitution of fuels for food became a lot more contentious. Although I believe that biofuels are an important part of the future, they have to be seen to be sustainable, otherwise what is the point?
The importance of the order is that we get in front of the curve in this area and assure the public that, with the increasing use of biomass, they are sustainable. I have two wood-burning stoves in my house which I hope are sustainable; they appear to be and I am told they are, although they come from Somerset and are trucked down to Cornwall rather than produced locally. We have to be careful as the public perception of what is sustainable in regard to biomass, particularly wood, is not always what it should be. Strange as it may seem, sometimes it can make sense to bulk-ship wood in the right condition across oceans rather than cut down local forests. In terms of transport solutions to carbon production, that can sometimes be best. I am sure that that is taken into account but I welcome this order.
Lord Grantchester
Once again, I thank the Minister for introducing the renewables obligation order today. It is an extremely important order as the renewables obligation is crucial in driving forward the development of renewable electricity generation through various support mechanisms. We are in broad agreement with the order. The provisions concerning the phased development of offshore wind generation are sensible and build on Labour’s legacy in laying the foundations and ensuring that the ROCs cover the whole lifespan of a project.
The situation at Dogger Bank, where there may be some 2,000 turbines, requires phasing so that the early capacity can be rewarded while the later development can still qualify for the full 20-year payment period permitted to receive ROCs. As wind power is at the vanguard of renewable technologies, will we need similar orders to encourage investment in other technologies, such as wave and tidal generation?
This part of the order is to be welcomed. Set against wider electricity market reform, signals to facilitate cost-effective investment in all forms of low-carbon generation must be supported. It is a complex balance reviewing the roles that a carbon price, an emissions performance standard, a revised renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs, capacity mechanisms and other interventions should play in achieving our goals.
The challenge in the order today relates to the sustainability criteria for biomass and bioliquids. Deliberations between Defra and DECC will have been informative in assessing whether we have the balance right in defining the sustainability criteria. We must ensure that we do not produce negative adverse implications for land use management or for the transfer from food production into biofuels or biomass oil, and that must be the case both domestically in the UK and internationally. There are several options for the Minister to consider when looking at how to achieve that balance, and the question for the Committee to consider is whether we have that balance right.
The issue of cost efficiency is key and the provisions will not satisfy everybody. Some organisations will say that we must go much further and put sustainability criteria at a higher level. Of course, that will have implications, and not only for the UK. If all we do is transfer the problem to other EU nations, that will simply drive our greenhouse gas problems abroad. I hope that the Minister will elaborate a little on the representations that he has heard during the 12-week consultation both within DECC and in discussions with Defra Ministers and other organisations. Will he tell us who is broadly content with the proposals, who thinks that they should go further and who thinks they have gone too far? Who thinks that the burdens are too great? That will help us to decide whether we have the balance right.
The Minister said that this order will be subject to endorsement by the devolved Administrations. Will he illuminate the Committee about whether there have been any differences of opinion among the devolved Ministers in terms of input into the formulation of the sustainability criteria? Were the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland departments in a different position? What was the nature of the discussions that have brought us to this point today, or was there broad consensus from the outset that the right balance was achieved between avoiding the imposition of undue burdens on businesses, the regulatory framework and delivering legally sourced, sustainable biomass and bioliquid crops?
Earlier, I mentioned marine and tidal power and asked whether a similar approach can be adopted. Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states how that could work. I can see the sense in that. The 50 kilowatt exemption is eminently sensible. We do not want to drive new or smaller investors from this potential market. It is right to exempt essentially domestic installations. However, in the intervening time, will the Minister also consult with those industries which are not directly involved in biomass generation and so on, and which have an interest in what happens with the ROCs regime and the development of this industry?
Lord Marland
My Lords, we have heard two very eloquent extremes of attitude. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, as always, comes from a standpoint of his concern about onshore wind, which obviously we respect. It is very much for the local communities themselves to establish whether this is the right option for them. Clearly, in Cornwall, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, with two stoves in his home—I think he will be known as “two-stoves Teverson” from now on—would obviously welcome onshore wind in the neighbourhood. I can only imagine that up on the Solway Firth, that glorious Turner landscape, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, would not.
The principle point here in terms of wind and alternative energy sources is that we have to deliver energy security for this country. I do not think anyone would doubt that, given the fluctuation in oil prices at the moment and the reduction in our North Sea capability. Renewables have to play a fundamental part if we are to achieve our 2050 pathway, which shows that, for more than double the amount of electricity required, we need energy and electricity from all sources. That is what the Government are setting out to do. The ROC programme pump-primes the renewable generation which is so important.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked some extremely valuable questions: for example, what is the present installed capacity for accredited offshore wind turbines? I can confirm to him that it is 1.32 gigawatts of offshore, which is the amount accredited under the RO. ROCs are eligible on generation only when the turbine is generating, which is when they are paid. We hope that that is good news and that we are not just throwing money at them, particularly, as the noble Lord points out, when they are not generating.
In terms of the aggregate subsidy that is guaranteed over the next 20 years, that requires quite a lot of predictive analysis which we are working on as a department, as the noble Lord would expect. I would like to provide him with that information later, if he does not mind, but the current cost of the ROC system of subsidy for 2009-10 was in fact £1.1 billion—I think that the noble Lord said £1.4 billion—of which £142 million rather than £200 million was provided for offshore. The figures are not readily available for future years.
Another question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was: what percentage of electricity was generated at present by offshore wind? I cannot tell him what it is at present, but in 2009 it was 0.5 per cent and that is going up exponentially as a number of offshore wind turbines are installed. As an aside to the excellent defensive points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it is quite interesting that in our manifesto document, for example, we were against the importation of wood for these purposes but were told by the World Trade Organisation that we could not possibly do that. I know that the Liberal Democrat manifesto differed from ours, so we can see immediately the benefits of this great coalition.
I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, supports this order. He asked whether we should be extending it to wave and other forms of marine activity. We should of course be reviewing that and I am grateful that he pointed that out. A lot of the work we are doing here is building on some of the activity that the previous Government carried out. He asked about the devolved Administrations and, as noble Lords would expect, we are on a very similar footing with them. As I pointed out, they make independent decisions but we have very good relationships across the piece, for which I am grateful to our officials. There is very little that can be put between us.
The noble Lord also asked who was in favour and who wanted us to go further, or not as far. It would be wrong to go through the list of people on one side or the other, so suffice to say that, as with most of us in this Room, broad agreement was achieved in getting to this. Clearly, some would have wanted us to go much further and others would not but that is what is done in consultation. We are permanently consulting in our department on the activity that goes on. We seem to be doing it every day. The certainty of the sustainability criteria is absolutely fundamental and I am so grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up that point. I hope that that deals with the substance of the questions and that this statutory instrument finds favour with the Committee.
House of Lords
Extradition: Gary McKinnon
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the Government of the United States about the extradition of Gary McKinnon.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we regularly discuss a range of extradition matters with the United States authorities, who are anxious to see a conclusion to Mr McKinnon’s case. However, further consideration has been delayed because my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wishes, before deciding the case, to obtain an up-to-date assessment by medical experts recommended to her by the Chief Medical Officer, and Mr McKinnon has not yet granted medical consent for this to take place.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but it tells me little more than I already know. Is it not ironic that a Parliament which has voted against the lengthy detention of criminals should keep a young man suffering from the condition known as Asperger’s syndrome in psychological torture for more than 3,300 days? Is it not time for the Home Office to liaise with those who have expertise in autism? Perhaps the department should go to the National Autistic Society and ask for a list of people with expertise in the area rather than relying on the normal line of, “Let’s see what the Chief Medical Officer says”.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord wishes to question the expertise of the newly appointed Chief Medical Officer. Negotiations are under way about the choice of an expert or a panel of experts, and we are assured by Mr McKinnon’s solicitors that they will consent to this. That is what we are waiting for. We have to recognise that these are complicated legal issues which have to be dealt with by legal means. Further, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that Mr McKinnon was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome in August 2008.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, when I met Mr McKinnon’s mother last week, she informed me that his state of health is deteriorating all the time. I hope that my noble friend will be concerned to learn that Mr McKinnon spends every day behind closed curtains and does not participate in life as he used to. When the Chief Medical Officer chooses an appropriate psychiatrist or a panel, it is essential that the psychiatrist is someone who specialises in adults with an autistic spectrum disorder. That is because to date, the solicitors who have seen Mr McKinnon at the behest of the Government have not been specialists, and at the end of their investigations have openly admitted that this is not their specialist area.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the sole grounds with which the Government are now concerned are Mr McKinnon’s medical condition and whether it would be an abuse of his human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite him to the United States. Some noble Lords may wish to note that this is a case where the European Convention on Human Rights is at the centre of the issue.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, does the Minister accept that Gary McKinnon had a history of mental health issues prior to any of these legal issues? Indeed, there is a history of mental illness on both sides of the family going back three generations. It is not just a matter of him having been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome in September 2010.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It was August 2008, my Lords. I have seen all these pieces of evidence which have been circulated widely among us. But this is an extradition case and we have to be concerned with the legal process and the evidence presented to that process. This evidence has now been presented and we are hoping that there can soon be an examination by expert witnesses who can provide the basis on which the Home Secretary and others can take a judgment.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all sympathetic to him personally, for he is the victim of a very unfair, unbalanced extradition treaty? If he has any trouble with the American authorities, will he tell them that he has no more confidence that Mr McKinnon would get a fair trial there than some Americans had that IRA suspects would get a fair trial here when the extradition of IRA terrorists was refused by the United States on the basis that they could not get a fair trial in this country?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Extradition Act 2003 and the agreement with the United States were, among other things, to deal with the problem of extraditing IRA suspects from the United States. We have to recognise that extradition is a process in which there has to be mutual trust and respect between the legal authorities in different countries. This was to improve extradition between the United States and Britain and also between Britain and Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries. There are, of course, those in Britain who do not think that it is possible to have a fair trial in the United States and there are those in the United States who think that it is impossible to have a fair trial in the United Kingdom. We have, however, to respect each other’s legal procedures within democratic countries governed by the rule of law.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, are the Government giving any consideration to the fairness of the extradition treaty and will they revisit it?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the coalition agreement stated that there would be a review of extradition arrangements and in September 2010 the Government announced that the right honourable Sir Scott Baker would lead a review, which is now well under way. That review panel will visit Brussels about the European arrest warrant and Washington about the extradition treaty with the United States in May, and it will report this summer. That panel will cover the breadth of the Secretary of State’s discretion in an extradition case, the operation of the European arrest warrant, whether the US/UK extradition treaty is unbalanced, and whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence. This is a very thorough review by three respected barristers.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, accepting the requirements of the extradition treaty and given that the Home Office already has reports on Gary McKinnon’s case from two of the best known experts on Asperger’s and autism—Professor Jeremy Turk and Professor Declan Murphy, both of the Institute of Psychiatry and both of whom are regularly relied upon by Her Majesty's Government in relation to these conditions—why has it concluded that it needs a further medical report, and why was it originally looking for a non-specialist report rather than specialist reports, which we now understand the Chief Medical Officer is hoping to provide?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it is for precisely that reason that the Home Office has asked another department, the Department of Health, and its Chief Medical Officer for their own, more independent opinion.
Video Recordings Act 2010
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will launch a consultation on the current exemptions from regulation under Section 2 of the Video Recordings Act 2010.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will launch a consultation paper by the summer. Publication has unfortunately been delayed because of the absence of evidence and statistics on the issue. Time is needed to secure the relevant evidence and statistics in order to make the base of evidence credible.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply, but this is unfinished business from last year’s Digital Economy Act. As my noble friend will have seen, the recent parents’ online poll on the Mumsnet website demonstrates conclusively the importance that parents attach to proper classification of some of those products which are currently exempt. I noted that the Minister said “by the summer”, but if the evidence is collected earlier than that, will the Government institute the consultation as soon as possible?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is absolutely right. We have read the results of the Mumsnet survey with interest. It presented an interesting snapshot of views on some of the issues. We hope that people will respond as well to our larger, more detailed consultation in due course. We note that the survey did not reveal the possible criminal sanctions that already exist. Many noble Lords across the House are interested in this subject. I acknowledge that my noble friend has been pressing for legislation to remove exemptions for a long time. If we can get the evidence earlier, we will do so.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
My Lords, while I am happy to hear that a consultation will be launched by the summer, is it not rather surprising that it has taken quite so long? It was after all in March 2010 that the Government gave an undertaking, as a result of which some of us withdrew an amendment, to launch a consultation on this issue. Although that was under a previous Government, it is largely a non-party issue and surely it should have happened by now.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord is absolutely right that it has taken quite a long time, and it has done so because DCMS officials started work on the paper with no proper evidence base. For any videos and DVDs that might be affected by any change in the current set-up, an assessment is vital for proper and proportionate consideration of options. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that we have been working with a number of industry sources and looking into other sources of information and research to try to obtain the evidence as soon as possible.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, although we are all obviously sorry that there has been a delay, does the Minister welcome the best practice that is already being followed by those companies which are using the BBFC’s online classification services to protect children and empower parents? Those companies include not only organisations such as Paramount, Universal and Tesco, which perhaps we would expect, but also companies that we have heard rather less of such as Harmony and Darker Enterprises.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has been involved with this matter for quite a long time and participated in the Digital Economy Act. It is important to note that any video that benefits from an exemption, whether it is music, sport, religious or a documentary, loses the exemption if it contains material that is sexual, grossly violent or criminal.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, will the internet be fully covered in these important consultations?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Renton raises a good point. The internet is not covered in the Video Recordings Act, which applies only to physical copies of video material available to buy or rent. The Video Recordings Act dates from the early 1980s, before the possibility of the internet as we know it now was even considered. I remember it well because I was on the British Board of Video Classification at that time, from the start and for several years.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the 25 years since the Video Recordings Act was first passed, the content of video games and other exempt video material has changed beyond recognition? Is she therefore concerned that this means that inappropriate and potentially harmful content in such works is now legally being supplied to children? If so, does she understand the urgency of the matter?
Baroness Rawlings
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. This issue is being researched and there are varied opinions. However, we can all agree that some material is, quite simply, inappropriate for children. The consultation will consider how best to achieve the position where children are not exposed to inappropriate material.
Lord Storey
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s replies but I am a little perplexed as to what further evidence is required. Does she know what that evidence is and how long the wait will be? This concerns not only parents but teachers and society as a whole.
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend is right. It is taking a little time because all these people have to be consulted. The matter was raised in the debate on the Digital Economy Act 2010. All these people need to be consulted in order to get the right answer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, for some reason the Digital Economy Act 2010 took out some of the words about a video game and put them back in again in another category. As I understand it, the amendments that were passed then are still not in force. Will the consultation consider how the Digital Economy Act has affected the other Act?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lady Gardner raises a good point. Video games were removed by Pan European Game Information legislation, which brought the standard for video games into the Act. The change to the Video Recordings Act 1984 still remains to be done.
Wales: Organ Donation
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received from the Welsh Assembly Government concerning possible changes to the law in Wales relating to organ donation.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
The Welsh Assembly Government made clear to the Government their intention to proceed with proposals on organ donation in Wales, and the Government worked closely with the Assembly Government to enable the proposed legislative competence order to be put forward to Parliament for pre-legislative scrutiny earlier this year. Following the result of the referendum in Wales on 3 March, the Government have now received notification from the Assembly Government that they have withdrawn the proposed legislative competence order relating to organ donation.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that the reason for withdrawing the order was because the Assembly now has full legislative competence in areas dealing with health and that after the elections on 5 May it may well want to pursue this matter within its own competence? If that is the case, can he give an assurance that the Government will not to try to intervene? Given the uncertainties and doubts the Government had about human rights and cross-border issues, can he give an assurance that they will not prevent the Assembly from moving ahead, if it so wishes, to legislate on the question of presumed consent to enable far more organs to be available for those who need them?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I understand that the current Welsh Assembly Government withdrew the current legislative competence order on the basis of the change that is about to take place as a result of the referendum. They have indicated that they look forward to the Welsh Assembly Government formed after the elections bringing forward their own legislation. It would not be for this Government to prevent that legislation going forward. However, under Section 112 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 it is a matter for the Counsel General for Wales and the Attorney-General, following the passage of a Bill, to consider whether that Bill should be referred to the Supreme Court on any issue of competence. I exercise a similar responsibility, along with the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, in relation to Scotland. These are often complex matters and it would be wrong to hypothesise about a Bill which may not come to pass and when we have not yet seen its final shape or form.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, as the House might know, there have been uncertainties about cross-border issues. For instance, for years neurology services have been sent from north Wales to Liverpool. Are they now to go to south Wales, when it takes far longer to go there? Furthermore, have we resolved the cross-border situation not only in the UK but also, in our relationship with Europe, the possibilities of cross-country involvement in Europe?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as we do not yet have any legislation, the first part of my noble friend’s questions about the provision of services may be premature. I simply observe that practical issues could arise if such legislation were to come to pass, given that the Human Tissue Act 2004 and the equivalent legislation for Scotland means that in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and at the present time in Wales there is no presumed consent. There has to be active consent. Therefore, if there was a donation from Wales, the question would arise whether that was allowed to be used in other parts of the United Kingdom if there had only been presumed consent.
With regard to Europe, there has been a recent EU directive, to be implemented by August 2012, that requires member states to verify donor or donor family consent. It recognises that different states have different opt-in, opt-out systems of consent. There are no specific plans for a European donor card, but member states are working together to raise the important profile of donation and to encourage more people to support or agree to donation.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, will the Minister explain what work is currently being undertaken to ensure that where Welsh patients are transferred to ITU beds, that system would be able to continue in the future, and how IT intensive care beds are being increased? A shortage of intensive care beds across both England and Wales is in part responsible for some of the low donation rates, so conflicts may arise when Welsh patients are in English intensive care beds.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it is difficult to speculate about what might happen, although if there was opt-out legislation in force in Wales, for example, and a person ordinarily resident in Wales was in hospital in England or another part of the United Kingdom, would somebody have to look up not only the donor register for the whole of the United Kingdom but also a possible opt-out register for Wales? There could be practical difficulties. No doubt that matter will be addressed should any legislation come before the National Assembly for Wales.
It is also important to stress the fact that, following on from the independent organ donation task force report in January 2008, considerable efforts are being made to raise the profile of donation and to put in place trained nursing and clinical staff who can take on the important task of talking to relatives. Indeed, since the recommendations of that report were implemented, donations have increased by some 28 per cent.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, is that not the point? Even with presumed consent, the family will always have to be consulted. Therefore the advantage of presumed consent is often overstated. The key is having campaigns and information available to encourage people to be willing donors in the first place.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, there were two reports in 2008 from the organ donation task force. One dealt with the infrastructure arrangements to which I referred, and the other looked at presumed consent. The latter report concluded that the case was not made at the present time to move to a system of presumed consent, but rather emphasised the importance of the infrastructure arrangements and raising the profile. To date I think that has borne some fruit.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Can my noble friend tell me how long the Welsh Assembly has been a Government? Did this follow the referendum that transferred further powers from Westminster to Wales? Are we not witnessing a ratchet of powers being transferred to both Wales and Scotland, which will inevitably lead to them both becoming independent?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, given that, during the association that I have had as a spokesman in your Lordships' House for the Wales Office, the acronym WAG for Welsh Assembly Government has been one that I am familiar with, it is not something that has happened since the referendum.
Lord Davies of Coity
My Lords, I realise that this Question concerns Wales and the legislation for presumed consent, but does the Minister or the Government agree that it would be a good thing to have presumed consent in England?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I indicated in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, this matter has been looked at. Under the previous Government, an independent organ donation task force was set up. After doing considerable research and looking at the effects in other countries, it reached the consensus that moving at this time to a system of presumed consent would not be effective and that far more effective would be to take some of the measures that I have already described—namely, improving the infrastructure for donation and for raising the profile of donation. In the three years since that report came out there has been an increase in donations by 28 per cent.
Young People: Custody
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will respond to the report by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner on the restraint of young people in custody.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, we consider this a thought-provoking piece of research that will be fed into our wider-ranging independent review on restraint. I should point out, however, that the authors themselves say that the size of the sample of young people they talked to—89—was not high enough to be statistically significant and therefore not necessarily representative of young people across the secure estate.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank my noble friend for his reply. In his review, will he bear in mind the inconsistency of the types of restraint and pain distraction that can be used in different kinds of children’s settings, with an objective of producing consistent standards to the highest international level and compliant with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? What arrangements are being made to provide independent legal advice to the young people who gave an account to UserVoice, which was published in the report, of treatments that might be unlawful, to ensure that they have the advice that they need to be able to challenge those treatments?
Lord McNally
My Lords, on the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, the whole thrust of departmental policy is to try to ensure that in all parts of the secure estate there is consistency of training and application in these matters. We are continuing to take advice on this. On the matter of legal advice, the Youth Justice Board commissioned Voice and Barnardo’s to provide an advocacy service in every part of the secure estate. Secure children’s homes also have advocacy services under contracts held by the relevant local authorities.
Lord Bach
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Youth Justice Board is a crucial player in this whole difficult area of young people and custody? The Government intend to abolish the YJB and take its functions into the Ministry. The Minister uses the strange but certainly novel argument that it should be abolished not because it has been a failure but because it has been too successful. Is it not time to stop this nonsense and accept that Her Majesty's Government have got this wrong and that the independent Youth Justice Board should be allowed to get on with its vital job?
Lord McNally
That is a little wide of the mark, but I am very happy to say that we will return to this matter on Monday next, when I am sure that that question will be in the noble Lord’s opening speech. He can look forward to my response on what the Government’s policy will be.
Baroness Stern
Could I ask the Minister, in order to put this matter beyond doubt, whether the technique of inflicting pain on young people to make them comply, by hitting them on their nose, has now been banned, and whether the techniques of bending back the thumb and hitting them in the ribs is still being used or whether those have also now been stopped?
Lord McNally
The nose technique has certainly been banned. My knowledge of the other two pain techniques that she mentioned is not as in-depth. However, I must emphasise that the whole thrust of advice and development, not only under this Government but over the past two or three years, has been, as I said in my opening remarks, to make sure that there is good training and consistency of staff attitudes in this matter. It is a difficult matter and I understand the concern, but it is a concern that I have detected in the staff and administration of the secure estate as well as around this House. The big problem, as successive Ministers have found, is that we also have a duty of care to staff and other inmates, as well as the desire to secure a safe and secure estate. Dealing with some of the most difficult and complex young people is very difficult, but reliance on administering pain is a very last resort in very difficult circumstances.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that government policy on the Youth Justice Board will be revealed on Monday. Is that because the Government do not have a policy today, or would he care to answer the question from my noble friend Lord Bach?
Lord McNally
The Government’s policy is as in the Bill. An amendment on it is to be debated on Monday. This is far off the question before the House. Two old experienced campaigners such as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble Baroness know full well when they are wandering wide of the mark. I will see them on Monday.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, this report by the Children’s Commissioner is most powerful in its first-hand descriptions of how restraint techniques in secure settings are actually experienced by children themselves. It makes quite distressing reading. It is followed by the commissioner’s unambiguous recommendation that the use of pain to enforce control and order should be prohibited and that internationally agreed standards, as set out by the UN and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, should be used as a benchmark. Will the Minister please undertake to ensure that there is rigorous, thorough and better training of all staff in the children’s secure estate who deal with these most damaged and difficult children, so that the use of pain during restraint ceases? Will he undertake, with the help and advice of the YJB, to ensure that greater consistency is established across the estate and that more effective and rigorous monitoring is in place throughout?
Lord McNally
I fully appreciate and have benefited from my noble friend’s deep knowledge of these affairs. However, as I said earlier, I also have a duty of care to staff and other inmates and the people she refers to as “children” are often 16 or 17 years of age, six foot in height and 14 stone in weight. In such circumstances, keeping a safe and secure estate becomes a real problem. That is the problem that we are wrestling with in the study that we are undertaking.
Hereditary Peers By-election
Draft Defamation Bill
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That it is expedient that a joint committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Defamation Bill presented to both Houses on 15 March (Cm 8020) and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by 19 July 2011.
Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the order of 10 March referring the Code of Recommended Practice to a Grand Committee be discharged.
Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.
Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011
Baroness Hanham
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 31 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 2 March.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:08 - Division on Amendment 7. - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 249 - Amendment 7 disagreed.
19:12 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 182 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this group of amendments represents a set of minor and technical changes to the Bill. The amendments tidy up the drafting following the addition of new Clause 16 at Committee stage. It may be helpful for me to remind the House that this clause, which was the product of extensive collaboration between the Government and noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, imposes restrictions on the use of the powers in the Bill by Ministers.
Amendments 1, 22, 28, 35 and 42 remove the paving references to Clause 16 in Clauses 1 to 5, which are no longer necessary and, as the powers in Clauses 1 to 5 are subject to other restrictions in the Bill, are potentially misleading. Amendments 90A and 90B make minor amendments to Clause 16, making it explicit that the clause applies to the main order-making powers contained in Clauses 1 to 5. As the Government now intend to remove Clause 6 and Schedule 6 from the Bill, our adjustments to Clause 16 do not apply to that clause. Amendment 90C is a drafting amendment, which will place Clause 16 directly after the main order-making powers in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, having described myself towards the end of the previous set of proceedings on this as deferential, docile and indeed passive because I had moved only one amendment—and that was really a motherhood amendment—I thought that I might be a bit more proactively docile in this set of proceedings and so have tabled a few amendments.
This one is singularly docile, because all I wish to know is a bit more about the definition in Clause 1 of “eligible person”, which is a bit obscure to me as a mere reader of English. The question of whether or not a public body is or is not listed in this Bill—and there is a reference to that sort of thing somewhere in all this—has become a matter of growing importance. There has been a certain amount of shrinkage in the number of bodies covered by this policy in the past six months. Starting off at nearly 1,000 in October’s Statement, the figure came down to less than 500—probably rather a lot less—when we saw the Bill. It has now come down by at least another half to something that is not much more than 150. I could make some unfriendly remarks but I will just note that this is a remarkable change over a relatively short period. What effect does it have on “eligible person” and, in particular, does “eligible person” cover public bodies whether or not they are listed in the Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is fortunate that I have an opportunity to respond to my noble friend so quickly. He has drawn a portrait of the Bill that I scarcely recognise. There are a number of bodies that we reflected on and considered in Committee, but we are still on track for the reform of the public bodies sector and we have, I think, the support of the whole House on the general terms in which that project is being undertaken.
My noble friend’s Amendments 3 and 23 are designed to amend Clauses 1 and 2 to make it clear that an order made under those clauses would transfer a function to another body regardless of whether that body was listed in the Bill. My noble friend is right to assert that, in many cases, it may be desirable that functions are transferred to an existing public body from a body that is abolished or merged. However, I can confirm that this is already provided for in the Bill. As Clause 1(3)(b) makes clear, the definition of “eligible person”, to whom a function can be transferred, includes,
“any other person exercising public functions”.
I assure my noble friend that this definition has been drafted to include public bodies both within and outside the scope of the Bill—bodies that, by their very nature, exercise public functions by virtue of statute or royal charter.
Noble Lords will be aware that some public functions are carried out by non-statutory bodies, such as most advisory NDPBs, many of which are Crown bodies and legally part of their parent department. It would be possible to transfer statutory functions to such bodies by two mechanisms. First, the function could be transferred to a Minister under Clause 1(3)(a), provided that such a transfer was permissible within the restrictions set out in the Bill, such as those in Clause 16 concerning the independence of certain functions. Secondly, a function could be abolished in statute but replicated using existing prerogative powers. This is the process envisaged for the Valuation Tribunal Service, for example, the functions of which will be replicated by the Tribunals Service as an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. In each case, the Government expect that the explanatory document provided with the draft order will provide clarity regarding any changes in the exercise of public functions. In the light of this explanation, I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Unless the opposition Front Bench wishes to come in, I will give an immediate demonstration of my docility and deference by endorsing entirely my noble friend’s comments about the Valuation Tribunal Service, which belongs in the unified Tribunals Service—anybody who is harbouring hopes of my support for leaving it out of the Bill had better abandon them. Meanwhile, in light of the charming reassurances that my noble friend has given me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and claim another little round of brownie points.
“( ) In considering whether to exercise the powers under subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I wish to degroup Amendment 62 from this group. That will enable us to debate that amendment when we deal with Clause 8, which is where it more appropriately belongs. I regret that I have not had much time to do this; I told officials but it may not have got through to the Minister.
I welcome all of the changes made to the Bill but there remains a major absence of a fundamental element. That is the purpose of the bodies whose existence, structure, functions or funding are to be changed. This amendment is about adding to the matters to be considered when exercising any of the powers in the Bill that,
“the Minister must have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation”.
Without such a requirement in the Bill, Ministers will have to consider only either accountability to Ministers or efficiency, effectiveness and economy. These are laudable aims but they miss the fundamental point that these bodies were set up by primary legislation and have statutory duties or powers. As the Bill stands at the moment, as long as consultation takes place, the Minister can do what he will, without having regard to the original purpose and objectives for which the body was created.
I do not maintain that all functions laid down in law, or all bodies, have to continue unchanged for all time. However, I do maintain that if this legislation is to be used as proposed—to alter what has been laid down in law—the Minister should have regard to the functions, duties and powers of each body where statute has defined these. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether the Government will be willing to accept this amendment now or when we come to Clause 8. I am absolutely confident that the intention was never to undermine the purpose of any of these organisations, but solely to make them work better for the ends that Parliament has determined. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very glad to support my noble friend in her endeavours in this regard. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested, the Opposition have always made clear that we have no objection to the principal aim of this Bill. It is right that public bodies should be reviewed from time to time. The concern has always been about the draconian powers that were given to Ministers, particularly in the draft of the Bill that we debated in Committee. We are very pleased about the removal of Schedule 7 from the Bill, and about the acceptance of the amendment that was moved in Committee on the restriction of ministerial powers in Clause 16. That is a very welcome addition to the safeguards that are contained in the Bill.
We could, however, go a little further, as my noble friend suggests. She makes the very important point that the bodies that we are dealing with, and the responsibilities that they have been given, were determined by Parliament in primary legislation. In using the Bill as is intended—to abolish in some cases and merge in others—it seems right that, as my noble friend’s amendment suggests, Ministers should,
“have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation”.
The powers that are given to Ministers are still considerable, albeit that welcome safeguards have been given. My noble friend’s amendment would be very helpful in providing yet another safeguard.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I support that. The noble Baroness and I have not conspired on, but discussed, various matters of interest to us both on the Bill. She has a point and I hope that my noble friend will respond constructively.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would never wish to do other than respond constructively to an amendment from the noble Baroness. I thank her for tabling these amendments and for giving us a chance to debate them. As she will know, the Government have indeed tabled their own amendments to Clause 8. They address the problem that her amendments seek to address.
These amendments to Clauses 1 to 6 specifically require a Minister to,
“have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation”,
before making orders. I recognise the motivation behind the amendments, because they speak to the very considerations that form part of the decision-making process during a review of public bodies. In considering whether a public body is required, the Government must first consider whether its functions are needed, and then consider whether those functions should be exercised at arm’s length from government. This process lies at the heart of the public bodies review to which the Bill relates.
However, I do not believe that these amendments would add any protection or clarity in practice. In this context, I note that your Lordships’ House has recognised that the Bill has moved on. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, commented on the way in which the Bill moved on a great deal at the Committee stage and since then in the amendments that the Government have tabled, particularly since amendments of this nature were first debated in late November. It seems a long time ago.
For example, the removal of Schedule 7 and Clause 11 has greatly reduced the scope of the Bill and a number of important restrictions on ministerial powers have been introduced. In this new context, these amendments are not necessary. The Government envisage that the purpose of the Bill is to support the improvement of public functions by making changes to public bodies. This is captured in our new amendment to Clause 8, Amendment 60A. In deciding whether to make an order for this purpose, it is not conceivable that a Minister would not have considered the aims, objectives or functions of that body, including whether they remain necessary or whether any improvement could be made in their delivery.
The requirement to lay an explanatory document setting out the rationale and justification for the order will require a Minister clearly to account for his reasoning in this regard, and the capacity of Parliament to select an enhanced scrutiny procedure for the order will give both Houses the opportunity fully to consider the Government’s assessment. Furthermore, the addition of Clause 16 places significant restrictions on the capacity of Ministers with regard to the independent exercise of some public functions.
I hope that this provides significant reassurance to the noble Baroness in relation to some of the bodies to which she referred in Committee. The matters and purpose in the revised Clause 8—the requirement to justify in an explanatory document why an order is being brought forward—and the revised restrictions in Clause 16 represent an effective and comprehensive way to limit ministerial power and require a clear explanation of the reasoning for orders in relation to the existing functions and objectives of a body listed in the schedule. This is done in a way that also protects ministerial discretion on how functions are delivered. The amendments do not add to this. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt and also the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for their support. I accept that there has been a lot of movement, particularly on the issues of independence and the limitations on ministerial powers. On the consumer landscape work that is being done, it will be the civil servants who draft the consultation and the responses to that and therefore guidance to them to have regard to functions will be very important. I will return to this matter when we debate Clause 8, which specifies what needs to be considered. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Quin
Baroness Quin
My Lords, Amendment 5 relates to the advisory committees on pesticides and hazardous substances. The Minister will remember that we debated these committees in Committee. A number of questions were asked by my noble friends Lord Whitty, Lord Knight and Lord Berkeley, and by me. Since we feel that our questions were not properly answered, we will take this opportunity to press the Minister for further information.
My noble friend Lord Whitty asked why the two bodies had been chosen. He mentioned a number of other bodies that have similar functions. He was not advocating that they should be abolished, but was questioning whether the Government were being consistent. The bodies concerned deal with very sensitive public issues—pesticides and hazardous substances—that raise concerns for us all. They have done a good job in dealing with these issues, and have impressive arrangements for the accountability of their proceedings and the publication of their decisions, including electronically on websites.
My noble friends and I also felt that the issue went beyond the two bodies to wider issues about the role of advisory committees and the role of independent advice to Ministers. All of us who spoke strongly stressed this. The Minister acknowledged that the committees had provided independent, expert and impartial advice to Governments of all political persuasions. As he knows, Ministers are required to consult these bodies in certain circumstances. Will those requirements to consult on such issues remain in the new structures that the Government are proposing? How will the new structures be better than what is already in place, given that it seems that no money is being saved in the process? We are aware of how valuable the work of the committees has been up to now. How will openness, independence and accountability be strengthened by any of the arrangements? We urge the Minister to reply more fully this time to the questions that I have raised, that others may raise and that were raised in Committee. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I hope that I can give a reasonable assurance to the noble Baroness when I set out our policy and show how we wish to be consistent in these matters. I hope that I will be able to reassure her that what we are doing is not purely about saving money, although again I remind her that where money can be saved, it should be. I think that even she would accept that point.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would prevent the Government abolishing the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides for Northern Ireland prior to reconstituting them as expert scientific communities. I noted very carefully the points made by the noble Baroness and others. She mentioned her noble friends Lord Whitty, Lord Knight and Lord Berkeley, who debated these matters in Committee. I was able, I hope, to give some reassurance on the key concerns expressed on that occasion. I am happy to do so again and I start off by doing just that.
There is absolutely no government agenda to restrict the flow and independence of impartial scientific advice to Ministers and others on the crucial matter of hazardous substances or pesticides. We want that independent advice, particularly for our negotiations with Europe, because obviously we have EU bodies that deal with these important matters. I am thinking about problems that we are currently having in negotiations with Europe about certain sprays that can be used on bracken, on which Europe seems to have a different view from ours. Bracken seems to present a problem for the United Kingdom but does not seem to bother much of the rest of Europe, where there is no bracken. However, it could have very serious consequences.
We want the proposed successor bodies to operate independently. We want them to continue to be able to put advice directly to Ministers and to be open in how they work and how that work is reported—for example, on their respective websites. However, the most important point that I want to get across is that we also want them to work more effectively. Our proposals for these committees are consistent with the approach that we are taking to all of Defra’s 18 scientific and technical advisory bodies. That is quite a large number of bodies that we are dealing with.
I think that the noble Baroness will be aware of the Written Ministerial Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave on 26 January in another place, and which I believe I will have been repeated as a Written Ministerial Statement in this House, on developments relating to the Science Advisory Council, which provides advice to Defra. The new arrangements announced by the Secretary of State will maintain and enhance the independence and quality of the science and scientific advice underpinning policy. The Science Advisory Council and the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser—I pay tribute to all the work that he has done for us—along with the chief scientific officers in all the departments and the Government’s own Chief Scientific Adviser working together will provide oversight of all the Government’s and all Defra’s scientific committees, as well as challenge and scrutinise their work. We believe that this will yield a greater and more co-ordinated level of evidence assurance to meet Defra’s needs. All Defra’s scientific expert bodies, including the three committees covered by the amendment, will, we believe, benefit from that approach.
I turn to one or two specific questions asked by the noble Baroness. She asked how those scientific communities could work better than their predecessors. I assure her that there was a consultation at the end of last year on the government code of practice for scientific advisory committees, and the new arrangements for expert scientific committees will be aligned with the evolution of that code. Moreover, within Defra we are putting in place enhanced arrangements for our Chief Scientific Adviser to have oversight of, and offer support to, all Defra expert scientific committees with assistance from our Science Advisory Council. They will report through our chief scientific officer to Ministers. As I said, that was announced in another place by my right honourable friend on 26 January.
As I said, some 18 bodies were identified in the Defra scientific advisory landscape. After further analysis, the likely position is that six of those will be deemed to be scientific and advisory: the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Air Quality Expert Group, the National Standing Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources, and the pesticides committee and the Veterinary Residues Committee. Three will be retained as NDPBs: the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Science Advisory Council at Defra and the Veterinary Products Committee. Others will be transferred elsewhere, and others which are no longer necessary will be abolished. Some will be retained but are no longer deemed to be science or advisory—for example, the Advisory Committee on Packaging, which relates to waste.
Obviously, we are taking a different approach with different committees. That, I hope, will explain to the noble Baroness why we are dealing with these three committees in this manner. I hope, with those assurances, which I appreciate I am repeating from our previous debate on these matters, that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept that we as Ministers, we as the Government and we as a department will still have the appropriate and necessary advice. I therefore hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for replying to this amendment and giving us more information than was given last time. I do not think that it was just a question of repeating what we heard earlier—indeed, he himself referred to the Written Statement that occurred after our first debates on this subject way back at the end of November. He has given us more of an idea of his and his department’s overall approach to advisory committees. We were very concerned that it just seemed to be a case of chopping here and there without a coherent framework. I would, however, have liked more assurances about openness and public availability of advice and documentation, in the way that the advisory committees have operated up until now.
I hope that our debates on this subject will be noted in another place in case there are issues about the system which the Government are proposing that Members in the other place might like to explore in some detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 11, 14 and 15. Amendments 6, 8, 11 and 15 will remove from Ministers of the Crown the power to abolish certain environmental bodies separately constituted for areas in Wales: the Welsh Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee; the Agricultural Wages Committee, the Environmental Protection Advisory Committee, established under Section 12 of the Environment Act 1995; and the regional and local fisheries advisory committees established under Section 13 of the Environment Act 1995.
The Government have tabled a separate amendment, Amendment 80, which we will come to later, to give the Welsh Ministers the powers to abolish the equivalent Welsh committees. Amendment 80 is part of a package of amendments following in-depth discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government to provide specific order-making powers to the Welsh Ministers. Further details of the order-making powers being afforded to the Welsh Ministers to abolish these named bodies will be outlined in the context of this package.
These amendments are consistent with the policy intention to give the Welsh Ministers the power to make decisions in relation to public bodies and offices in Wales where they fall within the policy areas which the Welsh Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales are responsible. This is also consistent with the aim of the Bill to provide the Welsh Ministers with relevant powers to ensure that they can put in place the most appropriate arrangements to deliver their environmental duties and policy objectives in Wales.
Baroness Quin
Baroness Quin
My Lords, Amendment 7 stands in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. I would very much have liked the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to have been present to move the amendment himself. I know that he has been unwell; we send him our continuing good wishes and hope that he will soon again be playing his full part, as he typically does in our proceedings.
I say from the outset that I am proud to be a member of the Unite union, which now represents agricultural workers. I joined what was then the Transport and General Workers’ Union on my first day in my first job at Transport House some 40 years ago. At that time, the Agricultural Workers’ Union was separate.
When we last debated the proposed abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in Committee, some powerful speeches were made, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in introducing his amendment, and by some of his noble friends, including the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who is in his place today. Memorable speeches were made by many of my noble friends. Those speeches were not just powerful but knowledgeable and drew on a great deal of background about the work of the Agricultural Wages Board during its existence, which, as we know, goes back a long way. It has had a successful history both in carrying out its detailed work and in promoting a harmonious way of doing business between farmers and farm workers in the countryside.
I hope that the Minister was impressed by the powerful speeches in Committee. He was going to reflect on the comments that were made, although his initial response was that he was not persuaded that the Government’s decision to abolish the board should be reversed. I hope that he has had time in the intervening period to reflect again on that point of view. Certainly, much was made in Committee of the lack of consultation in the Government reaching their decision. This was echoed in England and in Wales, which would also be affected by what the Government propose.
A great deal was said in Committee by the Government and their supporters to the effect that, now that we have a minimum wage, and given that the lowest grade of agricultural worker wage was, I think, 2p above that minimum wage—
Baroness Quin
It was 3p above—so this protection was not necessary. However, as many of my noble friends and other noble Lords pointed out at that time, the Agricultural Wages Board deals with many levels of remuneration. There are five other levels above the minimum wage. The fact that we have a minimum wage would not deal with that situation at all. In a way, the Government’s whole argument about the minimum wage was a red herring. There was an irony, however, in that the minimum wage and other social legislation that the Government prayed in aid for the vote in Committee were all very much opposed by the Conservative Government prior to 1997. Therefore, that did not comfort those of us who wanted to see proper protection for agricultural workers.
Many noble Lords pointed out that agriculture was in many ways unique. Indeed, that uniqueness was recognised in the fact that, when the other wages boards were abolished, the Agricultural Wages Board was allowed to continue. It was very much a reflection of the fact that agricultural workers may be employed individually or as part of a pair on a farm where they might be quite isolated from other workers in the same industry. A body that they can turn to which represents all agricultural workers is therefore a precious asset that helps to value the work of agricultural workers around the country.
It was also effectively pointed out by a number of noble Lords that many farmers also value the Agricultural Wages Board. Although the National Farmers’ Union in England has officially been in favour of abolishing the board, the NFU in Wales has taken the opposite view. In Scotland, too, there is support for the Agricultural Wages Board and how it operates. I also know that some farmers in England value the assistance that the board can give and feel that it helps them in what is sometimes an otherwise difficult and embarrassing negotiation with an individual worker on their farm. I do not know how widely the Minister has spoken to farmers about this; given the lack of consultation, I imagine very little. However, there is more support among farmers than is generally recognised. That is reinforced by the views from Scotland and Wales.
Concern was expressed, which I repeat today, about the abolition of the board having the effect of driving wages down, particularly in the grades above minimum wage. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked about this in our earlier debate. Concern was raised by a number of Members about pressure from supermarkets on our farming industry, which is already very strong. It might also have a knock-on effect in driving agricultural wages down. Many Members felt that the best way to deal with that was to go ahead with the introduction of a grocery adjudicator or grocery ombudsman. I know that a number of noble Lords have been pressing for that in recent Questions and debates. We are a little concerned that there is something of a go-slow on this appointment because it would help in terms of the relationship with the supermarkets and would be a much more effective way forward than abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board.
My noble friend Lord Whitty asked whether the Government would do an impact assessment of the effect of the abolition of the legal minimum on wage rates, given that when each of the other wages boards was abolished, rates in the relevant sectors fell. The Minister dismissed that idea, saying that it was not necessary, but I wonder whether he will rethink his policy of not doing any assessment of this kind.
I do not think it would be good for the rural economy if wages went down. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has already pointed out how workers in the countryside need to earn more than those living in urban areas simply to have the same standard of living. The recommendations made in the Rowntree report are important to the debate today. Indeed, in the earlier debate my noble friend Lord Clark mentioned that the Agricultural Wages Board provides a benchmark and yardstick for many other workers in rural areas, so again the knock-on effect ought to be taken very much into account. If the Government succeed in their policy, perhaps the Minister will tell us who is going to monitor what is happening to agricultural wages and whether the Government have any plans to review the policy if, in the light of events, the consequences seem to be harmful to farm workers.
I mentioned that Scotland will retain the Agricultural Wages Board, but I am concerned about the position in Wales. Since our last debate I have looked up the debates that took place in the Welsh Assembly way back in October. The Minister there complained that no proper consultation with the Assembly had taken place, which rather contrasts with what the Minister said a few moments ago about far less controversial bodies having been discussed in depth with Members of the Welsh Assembly. In the exchange that took place in the Assembly on 6 October last, the Minister there said that it was clear that Defra did not intend to devolve any budget to the Assembly, and therefore if it had to reinstate the Agricultural Wages Board only in Wales, it would require considerable work and a funding allocation. I am puzzled about the timing because that debate took place last October and yet the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board is in the legislation before us today. I should like the Minister to comment on why the Welsh Assembly, under pressure from Defra, felt it had to act so quickly when in fact sanction for the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will be given only when this Bill completes its passage through both Houses.
If the situation in Wales is unsatisfactory, it is also unsatisfactory in England. The lack of consultation is something that has to be deplored. Indeed, I believe that the Minister would have managed to get some changes through if he had embarked on such a consultation in England because I think that there was some appetite for simplification of the way the board works, as well as some reform and modernisation while adhering to the belief that the wages board overall does valuable work.
Some changes to be made by this Bill are very welcome, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, briefly referred to that a few moments ago. It is therefore sad that on this issue the Government have so far remained stubborn and obdurate. They will not save much money and it does seem to be part of a political agenda—of paying off an old score. For all these reasons, I cannot stress how strongly I hope that the Government will announce a change of heart today. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I apologise for the fact that, for health reasons, I could not unfortunately participate in Committee. I also send my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who certainly is a great fighter on behalf of these matters. We do not always agree, and on this occasion I do not agree with this amendment. I know there were powerful contributions in Committee and, had I been here, I would have raised one or two points.
As the noble Baroness has just said, the introduction of the minimum wage has altered the way we look at things. The Agricultural Wages Board came in many years ago and fulfilled a very necessary function, but nowadays many agricultural workers are paid well above the minimum wage because what farmers are looking for these days are skilled workers, not just people to do menial jobs, as they used to. The wages that people were paid in those days reflected that. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, will remember, as a former Minister, the various difficulties that one has to go through to qualify for many of the jobs that one has to do on a farm. Clearly farmers are not looking for the same skills as before, so I do not support her amendment, but there are a couple of points that I would be grateful if she would pick up from me. She mentioned that the National Farmers’ Union is, on the whole, in favour of the board. It will have explained its reasons and she will know those very clearly. I do not agree with her that the abolition of this board will drive wages down for the reason that I have already indicated: the needs of agriculture in today’s modern world.
According to the Foresight report that came out in January, which I have had the pleasure of reading, the thrust in the future is to produce more food to feed the world. Therefore, we need to raise the profile of agriculture for those coming into the industry and those who are already there, and we need to pay them well. Those whom I have been in contact with are well aware that we normally pay above the minimum wage. For the benefit of newer Members, I remind the House of my family’s farming interests, although sadly, for various reasons, we do not employ anyone ourselves now but have contracts with our neighbouring farmer. There were certainly low wages and long hours in the past, and the long hours continue, but during the winter in the quieter season workers are quite rightly paid for when they are not so busy. The agricultural working week, if you look at it over a year, is very different from the working week of someone who works in an office from nine until five.
The noble Baroness said that the abolition of the board would not save much money. If her Government had dealt with the problem, we might not have to save money now, but that is another point. How much has the board cost over the past 10 years, for example? I hope she has that sort of response for me. She expressed her concerns about the relationship between those employing people on the farm and the workers themselves. Nowadays that relationship is much closer than it was in the old days, for the various reasons I have given. I hope that she will be able to fill in the gaps because I missed the detailed discussions in Committee, and that, once she has heard the Minister’s and other noble Lords’ responses, she will think again about the amendment.
Lord Empey
My Lords, we are not going to get consistency throughout the United Kingdom on this because in Northern Ireland we have already decided to abolish our Agricultural Wages Board. The reason for that in no way challenges the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. A variety of things have collided here—not only the activities of the Low Pay Commission but the problems in the industry arising in different areas: for instance, the activities of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the fact that many part-time workers were being brought in, a number of whom we felt were being exploited. As Employment Minister, I was charged with bringing in special measures. We found that the best way of dealing with this was within the framework of national law, with particular emphasis on the Low Pay Commission. We found that many part-time workers, even if they were not indigenous, as many of them were not, were undoubtedly being abused in the contracts to which they were being asked to work, even being forced to pay for temporary accommodation, the cost of which was deducted from their wages by some unscrupulous agents. We introduced a law to prevent that.
The profile of the industry where I come from is different, because many more farmers today are part time. As the noble Baroness has just stipulated, very few people can employ workers in the same way as in the past. Given the difference in profile—the fact that farms tend to be either part time or much larger and much more sophisticated organisations—we feel that, although the agricultural wages boards as originally envisaged had a good and valid purpose, time has moved on and the profile of the sector today is radically different. The bodies have a very proud track record and we all strongly support what they have done, but, as with so many of the other bodies that we will discuss later today and on other occasions, time has moved on. We feel, and felt, that other measures that would bring the sector more into the mainstream of employment generally would make more sense in today’s world, because fewer people are employed in the sector and there are fewer farms, which have a totally different profile from the profile of those that were previously envisaged. However strongly the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, might feel about their amendment, I can say only that, in our circumstances, we looked at it and came to the conclusion that the time had come to move on.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I may chip in as a mere layman, and a former MP for a constituency that looked as though it was rural, just to support the previous two speeches. In passing, I may say that I really would not want to accept the noble Baroness’s description of my Front-Bench colleagues as stubborn, obdurate and wanting to settle old scores in relation to the amendment. That might turn out to be true in relation to others, but I am not sure that I would regard it as such in relation to this amendment.
As I said, I was a Member of Parliament in an area that looked as though it was rural. It had a lot of farmers 36 years ago—I was elected in 1974. Even then, although the numbers would have been down, a lot of people worked on farms. By the time I left, very few people worked on farms, certainly in eastern England, where it is heavily arable and a lot of people do not have or want animals. What one had were vast, Rolls-Royce-type pieces of equipment that needed highly skilled, trained people, as my noble friend pointed out, to operate them. Frankly, in a part of the country such as that, with modern farming—it is probably different in some other parts of the country—this whole thing has an antique feel about it compared with the circumstances in which the boards were set up. So I have some sympathy with my noble friends.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I intervene briefly in opposition to the three previous speakers and in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I, too, send my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who intended to initiate this debate.
We had a long and interesting debate on this issue on 1 December, and I was struck by how it divided the House in a way that I had not seen previously. I saw coming from the Benches opposite the perspective of the owners of farms and the employers of farm workers. I make no observation except to say that that is a statement of fact. I do not for one moment suggest that noble Members opposite were not considerate, not kind and not informed—they were and they are—but they see things from a different perspective than do farm employees.
The Agricultural Wages Board represents roughly 150,000 people. When I heard the argument that agricultural workers are quite well paid—we have heard it touched upon today—I was not so sure that any of the 150,000 people who were affected by it would agree with that statement. That makes my point about the difference in perspective when looking at these issues. I emphasise that this is not only about those 150,000 people; the Agricultural Wages Board lays down a benchmark for many other rural and agriculturally related activities, and as we move into the contracting business in agriculture, which is inevitable, it is even more important.
The argument used for the creation of the Agricultural Wages Board was that there was no method of collective negotiations to achieve what was considered to be a fair wage, and so the state had to intervene to determine what that fair wage was. I still believe—it came out in our previous debate—that, in the absence of collective bargaining, the relationship between one employer and two or three employees can be very difficult; it can be embarrassing for both sides in many cases. The Agricultural Wages Board assisted in that respect.
The Government have been very active. Mr Paice wrote to Mr David Hill, the chair of the Agricultural Wages Committee for Cumbria, Northumbria and Tyne and Wear on 22 July and made the point, on which we can all agree, that it is a key government priority to support British farming. He said that he wanted to ensure that the agricultural industry can adopt flexible and modern agricultural practices. I agree with that as well—I hope we all do. However, I worry that the price we might have to pay for this is a reduction in the wages of agricultural employees.
I accept the argument that the Agricultural Wages Board and the industry employ very skilled personnel. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has made that very clear and was very perceptive. As a result, various grades are covered by the board, and only a small minority are at the very basic level. I understand that. Therefore I was even more concerned to read another letter from Mr Jim Paice, the Minister in the other place, to Mr David Hill, dated 8 September, in which he says:
“the six different grades of worker”,
under the Agricultural Wages Board,
“will not be retained”.
They are going to abolish the various grades of skill that are now covered and recognised under the board. It is on that that I base my submission that, in a relative sense, wages will fall back and that the rewards that are currently given for skill, which is vital to that modern agricultural industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said, to produce more food depends upon the use of machinery and the skill of the workforce to use that.
It is imperative that we recognise those skills. I happen to believe that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and Mr Jim Paice’s proposal to abolish the grading of skills will actually lead to a less efficient agricultural industry, which is not what I want and, I hope, not what the other side wants. I feel very strongly that this will be seen in the countryside as another attempt by this Government to make life more difficult for people who work in the countryside.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, induces me to get to my feet, if only to correct him. He made that lovely, sweeping statement that all those on this side of the House are landowners and farmers, particularly those who spoke on 1 December. If I may correct him, I am not a landowner and I am not a farmer. I was a land agent. I acted for farmers, I acted for landowners, I acted for tenants and I acted for farm workers. Therefore I have no interest to declare and I do not fall into the category in which he sought to portray me.
We are all extremely grateful to see my noble friend Lady Byford back in her place and active again. She adds a great deal of common sense and a huge amount of knowledge to our debates on farming and the environment. I thought what she said was very soundly based, as indeed was what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said in Committee. I listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said. I found nothing new from what she said in Committee, although she did praise the strength of the arguments for those supporting her amendments in Committee. I would only praise the strength of the arguments against.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords that, because the House has made such good progress today, I was not present at the beginning of the debate. However, as my name is attached to the amendment, perhaps I may touch on two issues, neither of which has been mentioned since I have been in the Chamber. If either has already been mentioned, I apologise.
The first point follows on from what my noble friend Lord Clark has just said. The structure that the Agricultural Wages Board sets does recognise skills throughout this sector. The fact that many workers in many parts of the country are paid more than the legal minimum does not take away the need to have that structure. The requirements of agriculture are becoming more and more sophisticated at one end, but less and less sophisticated at another. At the higher end, those skills need to be rewarded. The structure provided by the AWB allowed individual farmers and farm enterprises to base their actual wages on a similar structure.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will know by now that every farmer you meet will tell you that every cost saving that he makes is immediately recouped by the supermarkets. One of my fears in this is that, once it is known that there is a reduction in the legal minimum, which sets a floor above which voluntary payments by employers stretch to quite high levels for some workers, the supermarkets and the big processors will say, “Your labour costs need to go down by the same degree as the legal minimum goes down”—that is, in proportion to the difference between the wages board minimum and the statutory minimum wage. For the total bill, that is an enormous amount of money and therefore a saving to the supermarkets. I know that the Government intend to address other pressures that the supermarkets put on the agricultural sector, but this will be one more excuse for them to lean on farmers to reduce their prices and therefore to reduce their wages. If the noble Lord wishes to start that process, there will be real dangers, and the skilled force will begin to disappear.
At the other end of the labour force, a lot of agricultural labour, and particularly seasonal labour, depends on migrant labour and is operated by a set of gangmasters. There is nothing wrong with labour providers, provided that they obey the rules. But one of the main ways in which the exploitation by some gangmasters of the workforce is identified is that they are not meeting the legal minimum set out in the Agricultural Wages Board regulations. Once that is seen—and it is a relatively simple thing to establish—all sorts of other abuses over conditions of health and safety, immigration status and tax and national insurance become apparent. As a result, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been able to clean up a lot of that end. It has been a very important way in which the authority can do so. If we remove that clear legal minimum, I fear that it is one less lever for us to clean up the supply of labour in what has been, in some parts, a very exploited sector.
There are all sorts of reasons why, historically, there is an attachment on this side of the House and in the Labour movement as a whole to the Agricultural Wages Board. I am a Dorset man myself these days, so I come from a great Tolpuddle tradition, but I am not simply relying on history. I am relying on the effect that the removal of this one remaining legal-minimum, sector-specific wage will have on the quality and quantity of the workforce in agriculture and how it is treated. In the end, if that happens it will be to the detriment of agriculture as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this part of the debate, and I apologise to the House that I have not spoken about this in Committee, but I take up and endorse a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I declare an interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking. One group that is potentially trafficked and has been trafficked in the past comprises agricultural and horticultural workers. I was extremely glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, speak about the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which remains in great danger of being abolished, although Schedule 7, where it appeared, is no longer part of the Bill. I would be very much more concerned about the loss of that authority, which has a specific requirement to look after those exploited in the fields and the horticultural industry, than I am about the loss of the Agricultural Wages Board, which does not specifically deal with that migrant group, part of which is capable of being trafficked.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, says that her amendment has some support in the agricultural industry and that the Agricultural Wages Board’s pronouncements are a good benchmark that the agricultural industry and others use. Both those statements are true; it is frightfully easy for farmers and others to give no thought to what they pay their workers and staff. They just follow the van, as it were. However, as I said in Committee, on our farm and on many others we do think about what we pay our workers and we pay more than what the Agricultural Wages Board sets down. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, farm staff are in charge of really expensive equipment. They are very skilled; they have computers, sat-nav and all sorts of things. Sometimes this equipment costs £200,000 per piece and that is why we pay more—it is a really skilled job.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that supermarkets will drive down wages. I disagree—in the audit that supermarkets put farmers through, they are very keen on environmental behaviour and other things, but also on behaviour towards the workforce. They insist on very high standards of facilities and I very much doubt that they would want to force farmers to pay less, because, if it got out to the public, they would not be so popular. In my experience, anything that the supermarkets can do to impose extra costs on their producers, they seem to go along with; but that is perhaps another point and why I spoke in the adjudicator debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is probably right that the industry needs a benchmark, but I do not believe that there is any need to make this a statutory benchmark. A very good alternative would be a voluntary get-together of the NFU and the unions which farmers who do not wish to settle their own wage agreements can use as a benchmark. I think that that kind of voluntary situation would deal with a lot of the worries that are coming from this side of the House.
Lord Henley
My Lords, allow me to intervene at this stage. I add to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, as to how much, as always, we miss my noble friend Lord Greaves, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here. I listened very carefully to what she said; I am still not persuaded and I will set out why. I will start with a very small apology. When she said that 2p was the difference from the minimum wage, I interrupted her from a sedentary position to say that it was 3p. She was correct—it was 2p. So, mea culpa, I was wrong. But I am not sure that 1p makes that much difference.
I think it worth saying at this point, in relation to the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the protection of vulnerable workers, that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority will continue to be there. Its job is to protect those vulnerable people and it does not appear in the Bill at all. It exists and there is no plan to change that. We intend to abolish the board and to remove outdated—my noble friend Lord Newton correctly described them as antique, worse than outdated—and unnecessary regulatory burdens from farm businesses so that they can focus their time on farming in order to develop a thriving, sustainable and prosperous industry.
I ask all noble Lords to listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, had to say, particularly about the way in which farmers themselves make decisions about what they pay their employees. These employees are using large machinery which very often costs a great deal of money, and these employers are not going to employ people without the appropriate skills. They will pay them the appropriate amount of money if they want to look after that machinery. Similarly, I commend the noble Lord for what he said about supermarkets, including the deals and quality assurances that they want. These assurances often involve the environmental and employment practices of farms and so on.
As noble Lords will know, the board has itself been keen to modernise the agricultural wages legislation; for example, to allow farmers and workers to agree payment of annual salaries. This will be far easier to achieve outside the current restrictions of a statutory framework. Once abolished, these functions of the board will cease to exist and agricultural workers within England and Wales will be protected by the National Minimum Wage Act and by wider employment legislation, as are workers in all other sectors of the economy.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked how much it would save, and how much it had cost over the past 10 years. All I can say is that the cost of the board last year was some £200,000, but that is without taking into account the cost to the department. However, this is not purely about saving money. We think that the board has outlived its term and therefore ought to go. Importantly, one should also remember that workers will retain contractual rights that exist at the time when the board is abolished until such time as the contract is varied by agreement between the employer and the worker or until any contract comes to an end.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I welcome that we have been able to have this debate. I had originally expected to sum up just before the Minister replied, so I was slightly thrown when I was suddenly called to introduce the amendment that I had happily co-signed.
I do not apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for repeating some of my earlier remarks. We had a very thorough debate in Committee, and the arguments have not substantially changed since then, but the point of the debate was to hope that the Minister would have changed his mind by the time that he came to the Dispatch Box to answer the points. I very much welcome the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It has always been good to work with her in the past. I endorse the tributes that were paid to her. Although there are far fewer farm workers these days—I accept the statistics that she and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, gave—154,000 people will be affected by the proposals. That is not a negligible number of people.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, not for supporting the amendment but for showing their concern about those who have been exploited in the past, and about the dangers of exploitation in the future too. I very much agree with the comments made by my noble friends Lord Clark and Lord Whitty.
The Minister has responded, and I welcome some of the things he said, such as his comments on the impact assessment and consultation in the future. None the less, the Government’s overall decision to abolish the board is one that we on these Benches still strongly disagree with. There is far too much reliance on the minimum wage legislation. As my noble friends pointed out, there are other grades that recognise skills within the agricultural industry, and the precedents are not good when wages boards have been abolished in the past. For all those reasons, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment, but would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Norwich and the Bishop of Exeter for adding their names to the amendment. I will be brief, because I know that noble Lords want to cover a lot of business this evening, including some Divisions. I am grateful also to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the letter that I received a couple of hours ago, which sets out some of the detail on these issues. That will also allow us to speed things along.
It is clear from the Minister’s letter that already 12 members of staff have moved over from the Commission for Rural Communities to the rural communities policy unit that is being set up in the department. Whether or not that move anticipates Parliament in respect of the passage of the Bill through both Houses, it is clear that the Government's mind is made up on the future of the commission. I will not unduly frustrate the Government and Parliament by holding out for the commission, even though I was the Minister who created it in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. However, I will speak up for an independent rural voice appointed by, and with the authority of, the Prime Minister, that will report on what is going on in rural England and will do so without fear, favour or special interest, on the basis of having travelled the length and breadth of rural England to understand what is going on on the ground: a voice that will be able at times to tell the Government what they do not want to hear.
I am relatively confident that the Minister will respond by saying that there are plenty of other independent rural voices—I think that that is what he said in Committee—and that there is a very fine Rural Affairs Minister in the form of Richard Benyon MP, and I do not necessarily disagree with that. He will say that they will do the job and that in any event the coalition represents swathes of rural England and so MPs can also represent that voice. However, I guarantee your Lordships that, should a party with a much more urban basis of representation return to government, the Minister’s party would clamour for an independent rural voice to tell the Government what they did not want to hear about the effects of their policies on rural England.
As I said, I am sure that Richard Benyon is doing a good job. However, I had his job as Rural Affairs Minister and I have to say to the House that it would be very hard for anyone in that job, as a member of the Government, to go out publicly and tell even “Farming Today”, at that ungodly hour of the morning, that the Government had got it wrong. It simply does not work like that. Ministers cannot go out publicly and say, on the record, that the Government have got it wrong.
I have no doubt that the Rural Affairs Minister is holding bilateral meetings around Whitehall, as did I and my successors. However effective those meetings were, they were not quite as effective as when the rural advocate, who is also the chairman of the Commission for Rural Communities, came to see me about the work that he did travelling around the country and looking at what was going on on the ground. That is another aspect of what the rural affairs Minister cannot do. That Minister is tied to whipped votes and has to go to the Commons of an evening, doing his bit as part of the government payroll. He is not able to get out and about and to understand what is going on as effectively as the current rural advocate, Dr Stuart Burgesss, who has done a fantastic job, or his predecessors or anyone else who acts as an independent rural voice. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Countryside Alliance, the National Farmers’ Union, the National Trust and the Rural Shops Alliance are all perfectly fine parts of our civil society. They are doing a fine job, speaking up for their interests in rural England, but in many ways they are specific vested interests, so nor do I see them providing the independence that we want in a rural voice.
I put it to the Minister that I shall be happy to give ground to him on his wish to abolish the Commission for Rural Communities if he can continue to give this country what it has had since the days of Lloyd George—that is, an independent rural voice that speaks, by appointment, with the authority of the Prime Minister in telling us what is really happening and telling us the truth regardless of fear or favour from the Government. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I do so with a strong sense of déjà vu, as I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. I recall speaking then about the real need from the perspective of a rural diocese such as mine, which covers the whole of Devon, for a body that could effectively hold the Government to account on the nature of rural policy and the delivery of that policy. No Minister, no matter how good, can do that for himself. At that time, people in my diocese were talking about the need for an independent body and not one that would be a creature of Defra. Therefore, I spoke about looking forward to a robust Commission for Rural Communities, with commissioners drawn from rural communities, from the voluntary sector and from academic institutions which had their fingers on the pulse of rural England. Such a partnership would be most effective in highlighting issues as they emerged in rural areas and advocate the policies needed to address them. Therefore, it was about a rural voice and rural advocacy springing out of a rural partnership.
I do not think that we have been disappointed. Rural England has benefited in many ways from the existence of the commission and its work. It has shown itself to have a robust independence; truly independent membership; and a good track record of evidence-based advocacy, especially on behalf of the most remote and sparsely populated rural areas of our land.
Alongside the work of the commission has also been that of the role of its chairman as rural advocate, which has been highly effective in ensuring that the findings of the commission, and the chairman’s own findings and views, have reached the ears of officials and Ministers. There is evidence that this has influenced policy accordingly. From the perspective of the countryside, his office has become increasingly valued in speaking up for rural people and communities, especially those experiencing disadvantage, and ensuring that policies take account of rural needs and rural circumstances. It was always envisaged that his role as rural advocate was to be at the forefront of public debate on rural issues and to have a really close working relationship with the range of different communities in the countryside, so that he might better represent the views and experiences of life in rural England.
There can be no doubt that the present advocate, Dr Stuart Burgess, has effectively carried out these responsibilities with imagination, tireless energy, drive, passion and focus. With the two parties currently forming coalition government having had a strong track record on rural advocacy when in opposition—I point particularly to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who, on some occasions when I have spoken on rural issues, has given me the thumbs-up from the Benches opposite—many of us were looking forward with high expectations of a heightened ministerial awareness of, and response to, the needs of rural Britain. However, within the current climate of cutbacks and of retrenchment of public services—I of course recognise the huge challenges that are facing the Government in this respect—there is a great risk that the voice, the partnership voice, of rural communities will now be lost. With so many issues impacting on the sustainability of rural communities, there is arguably a greater need than ever for this independent rural champion.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I do not hold a brief for the continuation of the commission, particularly in its present form, but it is about independence—robust independence—and about partnership. The sums involved here are not vast. For around £250,000 per annum we could ensure that this voice is not lost and that we will continue to receive that evidence-based dimension—detached from Government—that will ensure better informed debate about the future for rural communities. I am afraid that a rural communities policy unit, internal to Defra, simply will not do the same.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I should have declared before speaking to the last amendment that I have an interest as a farmer and landowner. I also declare for this amendment that I am an ex-chair of the Countryside Agency and an ex-rural advocate. I am not sure that being an “ex” anything is a declarable interest but it probably helps if everybody knows where I am coming from.
The Commission for Rural Communities has been a surprising success in providing the evidence, speaking up on behalf of the countryside and challenging the Government to look differently at the problems of rural communities—in particular, the still unrecognised issues of rural deprivation, which continue to come very low on every Government’s priorities. The CRC has had successes with the commissioning of research which, because the results are uncomfortable for the Government of the day, would almost certainly have never been commissioned by an ordinary civil servant within Defra. The results are uncomfortable for the Government of the day because usually they throw down the gauntlet saying, “This is the situation, what are you going to do about it?”.
It is not only Defra which gets challenged. There was a report by the CRC on the depth and impact of fuel poverty in rural England. Of course, that challenges the Department for Transport. Insight into maternity services in rural England challenges the Department of Health. Reports on financial inclusion, rural social housing and village schools challenge the Treasury, the DCLG and the Department for Education respectively, and so on.
In terms of fulfilling the Government’s tests of a permissible public body, I maintain that the CRC's activities definitely require political impartiality and need it to act independently to establish the facts. I accept that the economics of the day may preclude the existence of the CRC in its current form, which is why it is being abolished, but I do not believe that the Government’s proposed successor arrangements, based on a rural communities policy unit in Defra, will result in a rural champion, even under Mr Richard Benyon MP, who has already been mentioned and whom I know and respect. Such a body could not give the independence of thought and vigorous championing of all the rural injustices needed after decades of general government inertia by all parties.
Along with others, the real question I want to ask is perhaps more important than the existence of the CRC. I regret that I have not seen the letter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. How will rural-proofing be carried out in future? The rural-proofing role of the Commission for Rural Communities and the rural advocate was an important part of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which has already been referred to. In fact, it was the essence of the rural communities part of that Act. Rural-proofing is about getting the really important big-spending departments to consider how they equitably deliver their services in the countryside, especially to the remote countryside, in the same way as they deliver to the towns.
That involves everything from health, jobseeker advice, sports facilities, education and training, and justice to business advice. I always remember that when I was rural advocate, the DTI produced a manufacturing paper. I said, “Have you rural-proofed this paper?”, and it said, “What’s manufacturing got to do with the countryside?”. I said, “Actually, there are more manufacturing industries in the countryside than there are in the towns”. The DTI seemed oblivious to that. How do businesses access training and business advice? Can we ensure that they have access to fast broadband? For that matter, under the current Postal Services Bill, how can they post parcels at their local post offices, which are getting fewer and fewer?
All too often—in fact, almost always—urban civil servants ignore or are unaware of the difficulties of delivery in the countryside. How does someone get to hospital? That question often never crosses their mind. How does someone get to court? I have frequently joked that the best way to get to court on many occasions is to steal a car. How does someone get to training or to a job? The Department for Work and Pensions is totally unaware of the fact that if it put money into Wheels to Work to help young, first-time employees get to a job, it would save itself a lot of money, but it does not support Wheels to Work schemes because it does not really understand.
My question is: who will rural-proof those departments? Who will be bold, critical and outspoken on behalf of the countryside? Certainly not departmental civil servants—the words bold, critical and outspoken do not really feature in their career path. How does the Minister envisage rural-proofing happening in future? Perhaps it could be through a Committee of this House. Believe me, you need to have expertise and you need to be bloody-minded to be a rural advocate, and I should have thought that both those characteristics can easily be found in your Lordships' House.
I recognise that there are Ministers in the current Government who understand those issues, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said: is that good enough? What about future Governments? Are the current Government betraying the countryside in the long run? All the departments and their civil servants matter; all the Ministers and their staff within all the departments need to be continuously and publicly exposed to those issues. That just will not happen without a politically independent rural advocate of some description.
I beg the Government to have a rethink, not necessarily about the CRC but about the vital role of an independent rural advocate who can ensure that all parts of government, and not just this Government but the next one, hear and understand the voice of the countryside in all their doings. As your Lordships can probably gather, I feel pretty strongly about this. It would be a tragedy if the countryside were to lose that independent voice.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with all three speeches that have just been made. I declare various interests. I am a farmer in Suffolk, but I have some background experience myself because I was for 12 years on the Countryside Commission under the brilliant chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury. I was for eight years on the Rural Development Commission, chaired by Lord Shuttleworth and then the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. They had different, important, functions. They were then amalgamated, which may have been doubtful. Both bodies gave independent advice to Ministers. Of course, the Countryside Agency, of which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was a distinguished chairman, fulfilled that role.
All that is left now, apart from the body that we are talking about, is Natural England, which has made the awful mistake of becoming a bit of a pressure group itself instead of being an objective adviser to government. As I tried to explain to your Lordships at Second Reading, there is a crucial difference between a pressure group and an advisory group to government. The advisory group is meant to give objective advice, particularly advice on the views of pressure groups. Pressure groups have a totally legitimate role. The CPRE was mentioned, and I was for five years its chairman; it was and is a very effective pressure group.
There is a real danger of a lack of rural interest and understanding. This was very noticeable under the previous Government. This Government are more naturally attuned, in many ways, to the countryside and rural matters. In that respect, the coalition is a particularly happy combination because Tories and Liberals have traditionally had a closer relationship to rural areas than has the Labour Party; it is just an historical fact. That is not meant to be a criticism of the Labour Party, it is just a comment on the historical evolution of our political system. It is important that this dimension should continue in one way or another. We have ACRE, which is a body arranged by counties. I was for some years the president of Suffolk ACRE. In fact, I am now the president of the Suffolk Preservation Society, which is a county branch of the CPRE.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the points that have been made and questions that have been asked. It is an important aspect of this country, and I would hate to feel that we were dependent on civil servants, many of whom are neither sympathetic to, nor have much understanding of, the issues which need to be dealt with.
Lord Myners
I have no interests to declare. I have never chaired a rural agency. I now understand why: the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford held most of those appointments. However, I speak as a Member of the Labour Benches and somebody with a strong association with a rural area, namely the county of Cornwall. I am disappointed that the Government are proposing to abolish the CRC, which has done a fine job in ensuring that rural matters receive appropriate attention and consideration from all parts of government. I witnessed that myself, as a junior Minister in the previous Government.
The move to urbanisation is a global phenomenon. We must address the weakening of the rural voice. We may talk about the national experience, but the issues confronting people living in rural areas are very different from those affecting metro-centred urban areas.
The Government and the leadership of oppositions tend largely to be populated by people whose relevant experience is much closer to that of the urban environment than the rural one. Moreover, quite frankly, the Minister must know that the savings to be made by doing this are minimal. I cannot believe that this proposal received any close consideration by the Government. It was simply another name added to a long list in which the macho challenge was to make that list as long as possible. I cannot credibly believe that a rural unit within Defra can possibly replicate the need which is currently being met by the CRC. We know that the civil servants working in this area recognise that they work primarily for the Government and Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, they will not show a robustness of view or a willingness to be outspoken and to challenge their senior colleagues or the Ministers in their department.
Why on earth are the Government doing this? Why on earth are a Government who, so the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, tells us, speak for the rural community allowing this to happen? Further, I am deeply disappointed that the six Members of Parliament in the other place from Cornwall—three Conservatives and three Liberal Democrats—have been completely silent on this issue. I know that the people of Cornwall will be saddened if the CRC is abolished and will not be convinced that the Government proposals can possibly represent an appropriate response to address the silencing of rural communities.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I have been trying hard to be good, but I am afraid I have now been tempted by some compelling arguments on the point about independence. I would observe in passing that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has left out one of his jobs. The last time I looked him up, I saw that he was the chairman of Marlesford Parish Council, so he really does know the grass roots in a village in Suffolk. But that is, as it were, by the way.
I want to distance myself in one respect from what the noble Lord, Lord Myners, has just said, much though I admire him from contacts of old, but I do think it is nonsense to suggest that most of the Ministers in the present Administration are primarily from and knowledgeable about urban rather than rural backgrounds. It simply is not true. I thought that I should put that on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, introduced his amendment in a moderate but compelling way. He said that he was not really seeking to defend the status quo, but to ensure that there was an independent voice, which links with some other arguments that will arise later in the Bill. There is force in his argument about the notion that what is provided by an independent body can be substituted for by a unit in a department. In my view, that is complete and utter rubbish. Whatever else, I think we need an injection of independence in this, and that is the positive point, if I may put it that way, that I hope my noble friend may be able to respond to.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment of my noble friend and the right reverend Prelates and to say that I am struck by the powerful contributions that have been made in this short debate. They have been strongly in favour of the idea of an independent champion for the countryside and for the continuation in some way or other of the kind of work that the CRC has been engaged in recently. I was glad that it tempted the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to ignore his previous vow of good conduct and join in the debate, thus adding his very useful voice to those of other speakers.
My noble friend Lord Knight and the right reverend Prelates spoke from personal knowledge about the creation of the CRC and of the good reasons behind it. Certainly in its brief existence, if that is what it proves to be, it has done a lot of valuable work and has highlighted a number of important issues. It has addressed rural issues throughout the whole country. My noble friend Lord Myners mentioned Cornwall and I would mention the commission’s concerns about the future of the upland areas in my part of Northumberland. Indeed, the work of the CRC has been widely supported in this House in the various debates that we have held in relation to its reports—in particular, the report on the upland areas and the report on the future of rural communities generally.
I add my personal note of thanks to the CRC. I chair the Franco-British Council and not long ago we had a Franco-British conference on agriculture which, despite our well trailed differences on the CAP, turned out to be a harmonious occasion thanks to our common belief in the importance of the future of rural areas and in measures that are vital for the prosperity of those areas. In that conference the CRC and Dr Stuart Burgess in particular played a very valuable role for which I would like to thank him. All speakers have referred to the importance of having an independent champion so I hope the Government will give us details of how they expect that important function to be carried forward and how that independent role can be safeguarded. I hope, too, that the Government will pick up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about rural-proofing. Those issues are also extremely important.
Ministers come and go, as has been pointed out. I do not altogether accept what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was saying about Labour versus Conservative in terms of agricultural knowledge and expertise. When I was a Minister in the agricultural department, partly because of the very big Labour victory in 1997, many Labour MPs represented rural constituencies and knocked at my door very effectively at that time. Some Ministers come into departments with a great deal of knowledge about their subject and some do not. Continuing to offer valuable independent and impartial advice is vital. I do not accept all the comments that were made about civil servants, many of whom, in my experience, can be bold and imaginative, and I welcome that. But I applaud the idea of continuing with a rural advocate that is going to be effective for the future and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that is going to be safeguarded.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to Ministers coming and going. One of my noble friends quoted from PG Wodehouse a day or two ago. I remind the House of the remark: “She was a good cook, as good cooks go, and as good cooks go, she went”. I hope I will not be in that position, but I note that my noble friend Lord Marlesford, as my noble friend Lord Newton said, has served in a rural capacity as chairman of the Marlesford Parish Council. I never rose to those dizzy heights but, like many other noble Lords, I have served as a parish councillor and I imagine there is a great deal of expertise in this House, just as there is in all departments in government. I will return to that point later. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for mentioning the fact that I wrote to him. I wrote to all those who spoke in the debate that we had in Committee. I signed the letter off two days ago, so I apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that he received it only today and to other noble Lords who have not received it. I will certainly make it available to other noble Lords if it assists them in further discussions on this matter.
I join others in paying tribute to Dr Burgess. The Prime Minister has written to Dr Burgess as chair of the commission to confirm that the role of the Rural Advocate would not continue and to thank him for everything that he has done and for everything the commission has done and its considerable efforts in this role to date. The Government have concluded that no individual needs to be so designated in the future as they have very strong rural credentials of their own, which I will come to in due course, up to and including the Prime Minister himself and all my colleagues on the ministerial team in Defra. Again, I remind noble Lords what Defra stands for: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was created by the party opposite specifically to be able to focus not just on the environment and farming but on rural affairs. A great many of us have close links with rural communities and considerable experience of rural affairs.
I shall say in due course a word or two about how we intend to make sure that we champion these rural issues, but I can give an assurance, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Knight, wanted, that if the change proves not be as effective as we believe it will be, we will always be willing to revisit these matters. This is a Government who listen; that was the point behind the letter that my right honourable friend sent. We do not believe that there is a shortage of independent voices outside government who are willing to act as advocates for rural people. My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to the CPRE, of which he was a former distinguished chairman. My own late father was a chairman of the CPRE, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who is not in her place, has also worked for the CPRE. I use the CPRE as just one example. It is not as though there is a shortage of people both in this House and elsewhere who can speak up for rural matters and make sure that voices outside government can be heard on this issue.
I again emphasise that the name of our department is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In our role as rural champions, and in the ministerial team, there is one particular Minister, my honourable friend Richard Benyon—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to him—who will work closely with colleagues across all other departments. One should not think of this as a matter just for civil servants; it goes beyond that. It is a matter for Ministers in Defra and for Ministers pursuing these matters across departments. Coming back into government, I have found that there is much greater talk between, and much less of what we might refer to the “silo-isation” of, departments, particularly in this new coalition Government. It will be for my honourable friend to make sure that these matters are properly taken into account in making policy across government and that policy is appropriately rural-proofed.
As a result of that, an expanded rural policies unit within the department will support my honourable friend and all other Defra Ministers in their role as rural champions. The unit, which will be the centre for all expertise, will support and co-ordinate across government activity that is of critical importance to rural communities. The unit will represent a significant increase in capacity within government, having come from the CRC. It is now almost fully staffed, with 12 members of the new team having come from the CRC. It is currently developing its work programme and improving effective links with organisations representing rural interests. It has substantially expanded evidence, statistics and intelligence capacity to enable whoever happens to be in government to build and maintain a strong rural evidence base. That evidence will inform the unit's priorities and be used to influence policy across government, ensuring that rural concerns and potential solutions are heard by decision-makers. The unit will operate transparently and will publish all its evidence. It will work to build on the relationships with stakeholders that the department currently enjoys.
I hope with those assurances—
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not think that he has answered the really important point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the difference between a body that exists to give independent advice and advocacy and many pressure groups. He has pointed to the existence of many pressure groups, but does he recognise that to take us down this route will leave us for the first time in more than 100 years, since the time of Lloyd George, with no body to give that independent advice and advocacy to government and no body that does not exist simply as one pressure group among many?
Lord Henley
I do not accept that point. There are outside bodies that can offer advice to the Government and we will listen to that advice. We will listen to Parliament and to the various committees in the other place and in this House that will offer independent advice and make their points, just as pressure groups will offer advice and make their arguments. However, within government, we believe that this can be done more effectively within the department, with the appropriate Ministers and their teams responding to those matters. With that in mind, we believe that there are sufficient safeguards.
If one took the right reverend Prelate’s point to its logical conclusion, one would need an independent body to discuss almost every issue. It is right that these should be matters for the Government. There is appropriate expertise among Ministers and appropriate knowledge and interest. That is why I have set out the position of my honourable friend Mr Benyon in another place and why we have brought some of the staff from the CRC within the department. We believe that will be sufficient to meet the task.
However, as I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Knight—this was his concern—if an independent advocate was needed again, we would of course be prepared to look at that issue if the change proved not to be as effective as we believe it will be. I think the noble Lord was looking at the individual advocate rather than the CRC as whole. That is what is behind this debate and why I am trying to give him that assurance. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, we have had a useful debate that, with the exception of the last speaker—the Minister—achieved unanimity. He spoke a great deal about the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that the clue is in the name, but if you take “rural affairs” from the title the department becomes “Def”—and there were times when the Minister was not listening to what the debate was saying about an independent and impartial voice for rural England.
I am not seeking to frustrate the clear determination of the Government to get rid of the Commission for Rural Communities, much as I regret that decision and do not support it, and I do not want to test the opinion of the House now. Those of us who have spoken in the debate will look carefully at the Minister’s words and the reassurances that he has attempted to give. No doubt we will discuss among ourselves how we wish to pursue the cause of an independent and impartial voice for rural England in the future. If he wants to engage with us, we would welcome that in trying to further the reassurances he has given us. Then perhaps we will be able to have the independent and impartial voice that Members of your Lordships’ House wish to see continued.
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 21. In Committee I pointed out the valuable function that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee performed in focusing attention on the transport needs of disabled people. I do not want to go over that ground again today but, given the fact that DPTAC was performing a valuable function, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I were concerned that we should have a better idea of the successor arrangements that the Government proposed to put in place to ensure that the distinctive extra dimension that DPTAC brings to policy-making and implementation is retained.
I am pleased to say that constructive discussions have taken place since Committee and I am most grateful to the Minister, the Bill team, officials from the Department for Transport and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for the time and effort that they have been willing to put into these discussions.
Amendment 21 seeks to reflect the understanding which I think we reached at the end of those discussions: namely, that an order abolishing DPTAC would not be made until robust successor arrangements were in place on which the Government had consulted relevant stakeholders, organisations for disabled people, their families and carers; furthermore, that there should be a report to Parliament setting out the successor arrangements and the consultations that had taken place on them, and indicating that they have broad support. If the Minister can confirm that that is also his understanding of the discussions that we had, we might be able to go forward on that basis. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
I have to inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 21 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Wilkins
I have my name to these amendments and I regret that, due to illness, I was unable to speak in Committee in support of the retention of DPTAC.
DPTAC has been held in huge respect for very good reason over the past 20 years. It has brought together all those who need to be involved in order to make sure that the needs of disabled people are met by the transport sector. The committee includes not only disabled people covering the wide range of impairment types but, most importantly, experts covering the transport field—for example, people who are expert in the bus industry, trains and so on—people who the industry will listen to in finding solutions to access problems. As a result, DPTAC has worked co-operatively with the industry to sort out how to make the access policy work. It is hard to see how a replacement body would be able to achieve better results.
DPTAC has performed an indispensible role in drawing attention to the transport needs of disabled people and in ensuring that our profile is raised both externally with the transport industries and internally with the Department for Transport. Without it, it would have been all too easy for these issues to go by the board. Indeed, with the closure of the mobility unit within the department, there is evidence that the department has lost its focus on disability issues. Without DPTAC there will be no one to fight for disabled people, whose interests are all too tempting to overlook when budgets are tight and there is no one to fight our corner.
In his reply in Committee, the Minister sounded somewhat complacent about the transport sector incorporating the needs of disabled people into the mainstream of transport planning and delivery. I agree that all modes of transport have been transformed in the past two and a half decades, but a great deal still remains to be done. There are very few accessible buses in many parts of the country, disabled people still cannot use half the tubes in London, timetables are still inaccessible to people with learning disabilities, and the taxi situation desperately needs sorting out. There is still an essential need for DPTAC’s focus and technical expertise. Moreover, the provision now made by mainstream providers must be monitored to ensure that they provide the access that they claim exists.
The Minister argued that DPTAC needed to be replaced,
“to increase flexibility and accountability to the taxpayer”.—[Official Report, 11/1/11; col. 1320.]
It seems strange that an expert committee, which gave its advice for free for over 20 years, might not be seen as very good value to the taxpayer. However, that aside, I agree that there might now be an argument that DPTAC’s technical expertise could be augmented by more of a focus on the behavioural side of transport issues—for example, the problems with unco-operative bus drivers; the behaviour of other passengers, especially those who refuse to remove their buggies from the wheelchair space; and especially the need to give disabled people the confidence that it is safe to use public transport and that they will be able to reach their destination—so that we use the accessible transport that has been provided.
While DPTAC might have lacked visionary strategic leadership in the recent past, candidates are available to take the chair who would give the committee the vibrant leadership required to meet all the Government’s aspirations for greater flexibility. DPTAC has been a model of good practice. It is a model that should be extended across the public service, not abolished. If the Minister is intent on doing so, finding an alternative arrangement that will better it will be a very tall order indeed.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I also have my name to this amendment, and I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Disabled people as yet do not have equal opportunities to use transport. It is a complex issue. For disabled people it is incredibly hard to be spontaneous. If you wish to travel by train, you have to book 24 or 48 hours in advance. You have to check that the toilets on the trains are accessible. I know too many people who, like me, find it incredibly difficult to navigate around the UK. Travelling from London to the north-east of England, you sometimes have to be put off at York to use facilities. It is incredibly difficult for disabled people to do many things that many non-disabled people take for granted.
It is important to have an organisation such as DPTAC because in 492 days and 525 days—just 70 and 75 Wednesdays—we will have the Olympics and Paralympic Games in the UK. There is no doubt that the Games will be wonderful but, as a country, we will be assessed on so much more than the athletics achievements at Games times; we will be assessed on how we move people around the city. I declare an interest in that I sit on a number of LOCOG committees looking at athlete engagement and diversity. I am also a board member of Transport for London. During Games time we will have more disabled people in London than ever before at any one time. There will be significant numbers of disabled tourists and large numbers of disabled volunteers, who have been actively encouraged by LOCOG.
In addition, we will have 4,500 disabled athletes for the Paralympic Games who, I accept, will be using dedicated Games transport much of the time. That in itself will require considerable stakeholder consultation and work. However, those athletes will be using other modes both inside and outside London around Games time to get to pre-Games training camps and to return later. The expectation in the UK is that we will have an incredibly accessible country. For me, it is essential that we have a body such as DPTAC that can influence pre-Games. We can also learn from the experience of moving significant numbers of disabled people around so that after the Games we have a truly meaningful legacy for disabled people for transport.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, my name is not on this amendment. I might have kept my head down had the noble Lord, Lord Low, not blown my cover by indicating that I had been conspiring with him over this matter in the period since we last discussed it. I ought to declare an interest in that I have my own problems these days. However, what is prompting me to intervene is that I have had a long experience of these difficulties through connections with many voluntary organisations for disabled people, and not least as Minister for disabled people, albeit a long while ago, between about 1982 and 1986. That kind of experience leaves you with an abiding sense of the range of difficulties and—although we have made huge progress—the extent to which things still need to be done.
I do not have quite the same problems as the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Grey-Thompson, because I am still able to get about to a significant extent. As far as the railways are concerned, I pay tribute to the almost unfailing courtesy of the staff at railway stations, who in many cases do not wait to be asked but come and say, “Do you need some help?”. However, if you want to know where the limitations still are, let me tell you that Ipswich station in Suffolk, where I have been twice today—the county town of a sizeable though not macro county—has no means of getting someone like me or the two noble Baronesses from one platform to the other, except what you might call a man with the red flag to see you across the line when there are no trains about. I have missed connections as a result. It is true that they are building lifts at the moment, but they are two months late.
What should have been available today is not going to be available for another couple of months. That is a two-month delay in six. Network Rail does not appear to think that this is a matter of any great consequence, from what they are reported to have said to one of the Suffolk MPs. There are plenty of problems that need to be tackled, and I have some experience and knowledge of them. I certainly do not think that they can be dismissed, and they vary enormously from one form of disability to another. That is the other key point with which I think the noble Lord, Lord Low, would agree. The sorts of things that someone like me requires are one thing, but if you are wheelchair-bound it is another thing. If you are deaf, blind or suffering from one of a variety of other conditions, another set of things are required. It is crucial that whatever arrangements are put in place should reflect and represent that diversity with real knowledge of the differences between various forms of disability. That is one of the key things here. I hope my noble friend will be able to respond constructively once again so that I can applaud him and stop being a nuisance.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, I speak because of my work with veterans. I remind the Minister, if he needs reminding, that a veteran can be an old fellow like me or he can be a young man of 18 or 19 with no legs. There are many people who use wheelchairs, who are blind or who are otherwise incapacitated. Having listened to what has been said, I wonder if the Government have really thought this problem through. I have to say that, until I hear the noble Lord speak, I support the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the others very much in what has been said so far. I am not sure that the Government have really gripped this problem.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I support of each of these amendments, so effectively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, my noble friend Lady Wilkins, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I was very interested to hear his role in the conspiracy.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has played a vital role in advising government and industry on accessible transport systems. Its focus on ensuring that disabled people have the same access to transport as anyone else has been key to many improvements over the past 25 years. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, acknowledged in Committee, despite considerable improvements in access to all modes of transport over that period, there is still much to do. We heard some of this just this afternoon. My noble friend Lady Wilkins talked about those with learning disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said that it is difficult for disabled people to be spontaneous and spoke with great authority about the high expectations in the UK in relation to the Olympics.
We know that RADAR has pressed the point that major investment in accessible transport has not yet been matched by a major increase in confidence among disabled people in getting out and about. A huge amount of awareness-raising remains to be done because we have not yet delivered a truly integrated system that guarantees independence and safe mobility. Of course, this is essential if disabled people are to have proper access to services and jobs.
We were told in Committee that issues around disability and transport had moved on, as it were, since DPTAC was put on a statutory basis, and these matters were embedded in the core approach of the Department for Transport. That is as it should be, but it is not a reason to abandon DPTAC; in fact, it would seem to be an acknowledgement of its success and its relevance. It has its statutory functions and is a statutory consultee when rail vehicle accessibility regulations are to be introduced. The Minister might tell us what, if DPTAC is to go, will replace those arrangements. DPTAC has not just been passive, sitting back and waiting to be consulted; its strength is that it has been proactive and an independent voice, mirroring the debate that took place under the last amendment.
The Minister has a high hurdle to overcome if he is to convince us of the merits of his case. We have agreed that disabled people are the experts in their own lives and it is their voices that we should be listening to this afternoon. DPTAC has been a success; it has knowledge, experience, commitment and a track record, so why try to fix what is not broken? Cynics may say that Ministers have to meet their quota of quangos to be dealt with. If the Government are determined to destroy DPTAC, we must know before they do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, made clear when speaking to Amendment 21, what is to replace it, the process by which that judgment is to be made and, in particular, how disabled people and their families and carers have been engaged. We should know their views on what is proposed.
The Government would be wise to draw back from removing DPTAC, and I urge them to do so. If they do not, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, is minded to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for introducing this amendment and for the discussions that we had between Committee and this item coming up at Report. They were very useful and focused the Government’s mind on the importance of disability. All Members of the House will, I think, share the view that while much has been achieved in making the world a better one for people with disabilities, so much more remains to be done. I hope in responding to this debate that I can convey how the Government intend to approach this task and give an example of how the process of abolishing DPTAC is an opportunity for the Government to focus in future on tackling the task of the world of the disabled.
It was really very useful to have the contributions from all noble Lords from around the House on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said that there needed to be a new focus not only on the physical world but on the behavioural world in which disabled people had to live. While disabled people make use of the facilities that may be there, operatives and members of the public may not be aware of the necessity for behaviour also to adapt to others’ disabilities. I am grateful for the involvement of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, because I think in the Ipswich model he shows that there is so much still to be done—albeit the lifts are there. There is a huge task in making the world of the disabled less disadvantaged than it is for others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out when she graphically drew the attention of the House to the contrast between the world of the able-bodied and the challenges facing those with a wide range of disabilities.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I had not really thought about mentioning Ipswich until I got up, but it is not just disabled people who are affected. I once stood on one side of Ipswich station with a lady with a baby in a pushchair who could not use the stairs and a woman with a suitcase nearly as big as she was who could not use the stairs, either. I do not think that the other two wanted to go to London, but I did—and I stood and watched the London train come in and I stood and watched the London train go out. This is just not sensible in this day and age. It is not just disabled people who are affected.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Well, I think that Members of the House would acknowledge that and would acknowledge from their direct experience of their own family and friends how difficult sometimes the physical world can be.
I acknowledge the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the role of veterans. They are individuals to whom we owe such a great deal and who find themselves, through their sacrifice, in the world of the disabled. Often the fittest and most robust of individuals find themselves having to cope with the world of the disabled and the contrast of that world.
I want to demonstrate that the Government's approach to disability has moved forward substantially since 1985, when the DPTAC was established, and the important issues of disability equality are now a core element of departmental policy and delivery. This covers all departments, but particularly the Department for Transport. At a practical level, although there is much more that still can be done, access to all modes of travel has been transformed over the past two and a half decades. That is not to say that it was very poor before. Rather than seeking access for disabled people as a specialist topic, transport operators across the sector are now expected to incorporate their needs into the mainstream of their transport planning and delivery. Against this background, and while recognising the valuable work that the committee has done for the department in areas such as accessibility and mobility policy, there is scope to reform the way in which disability advice is delivered.
The Department for Transport intends to issue a discussion document before the summer to inform its proposals in this regard. This will enable the Government to take the concerns of stakeholders into account in the development of successor arrangements. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Low, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, are concerned to ensure that the details of successor arrangements, supported by relevant stakeholders, are in place before an order to abolish DPTAC is laid before Parliament, and I was grateful for the opportunity to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree prior to Report to discuss their concerns. I am delighted that this proposed amendment gives the Government the chance to put on record the fact that the Department for Transport does not intend to bring forward an order to abolish DPTAC until, following a substantial consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders, the department has a clear proposition as to the successor arrangements that will be put in place.
I can further assure noble Lords that, under Clause 10, the explanatory document laid with any draft order will need to set out how a Minister considers that the considerations in Clause 8(2) have been met. These considerations, alongside existing legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, will require Ministers to consider equalities issues when bringing forward an order under the Bill. Until those successor arrangements are established and firm proposals are in place, there is no question of abolishing DPTAC. Given this, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in all cases with a great deal more eloquence than I did myself—and also with greater transparency, because most noble Lords who spoke declared an interest, and I did not do so myself. I shall waste no more time and declare my interest as a disabled person.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am not completely persuaded by the mainstreaming argument. I have always thought—indeed, I have always found—that when everyone is given a responsibility, it can all too easily turn out to be the case that nobody has a responsibility. I do not have a problem with everybody having a responsibility, but—especially if the responsibility is a specialised one, requiring specialist expertise—it is usually essential that there is someone around, some specialist with specialist expertise, to keep them up to the mark.
I think that, having listened to the debate, the Minister can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling from all parts of the House that robust arrangements need to be put in place to replace DPTAC. The Government, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have a high hurdle to clear if your Lordships are to be satisfied that it would ever be appropriate to abolish DPTAC. However, from what the Minister has said, it is clear that the Government have it in mind to put in place successor arrangements to provide the specialised advice which is needed in this case. We still do not know what those arrangements are, but the Minister has made it clear that the Government intend to publish proposals and consult on them and that an order to abolish DPTAC will not be brought forward without a document explaining how the safeguards in Clause 8(2), as well as other equalities considerations, have been met.
I hope that I can also take it from the Minister’s remarks that the Government would not wish to bring forward proposals for successor arrangements until they were sure that they had the support of relevant stakeholders. In the circumstance that there will be no order to abolish DPTAC and that there will be a full opportunity for consultation—indeed, that there will be opportunity for your Lordships to scrutinise the Government’s proposals and how adequately they fulfil the function presently carried out by DPTAC—and given the Minister’s assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the effect of these two amendments would be to move Consumer Focus—the National Consumer Council, as it is probably better known to the House—from Schedule 1, in other words the list to be abolished, to Schedule 5, whereby its functions would be transferred elsewhere. It is clear from everything that the Government have said that they do not wish to abolish the role, functions and duties of Consumer Focus, nor, indeed, to lose its expertise and specialist market understanding. The plans as set out are to merge all these functions and duties under two independent charities, Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland, with perhaps some, I gather, going to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.
The intended transfer of such functions therefore stands quite appropriately, as the Government envisage it, within the powers of Clause 5, which is the power to transfer functions. I see no reason for it to be within the powers of the Minister under Clause 1, which is the power to abolish. Indeed, given that Consumer Focus was set up by an Act of Parliament, with the full support of this House, as late as 2007, with its role, remit, powers and responsibilities well debated and agreed at that time, it would seem the most extraordinary use of the Clause 1 powers to abolish it without primary legislation. It is not, in the words of an earlier debate, a dead duck or anything like it.
That is not what had been planned, in so far as we have been told. Its statutory work on behalf of consumers, young people, old people and those in rural areas—the vulnerable throughout the United Kingdom—is projected to continue. Consumer Focus’s powers to seek market information and to represent users’ interests in the setting of prices, the taking up of complaints and of super-complaints on behalf of all consumers—all these, we understand, are destined to remain and simply to be transferred to Citizens Advice.
Your Lordships are well aware of the superb record of the National Consumer Council—the Minister was, of course, a prior chair—and, more recently, of Consumer Focus. We are all aware of the savings in energy bills that it has made for millions of consumers. We also know of its work in establishing ombudsman schemes and in improving markets to work better for consumers. It has statutory powers to demand information from across all sectors of the economy, particularly in relation to energy and postal services. It has a statutory duty to have a particular regard to the needs of the disabled, the elderly, the poor and vulnerable workers and to represent consumers across all four nations by having a presence there. All of these will, we assume, be retained. So unless there is more that we do not know of, surely it is much more appropriate for Consumer Focus to belong in Schedule 5, not in Schedule 1. On that basis, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, in the course of many debates on the Bill, the question has repeatedly been raised, “If such-and-such a body is abolished, what is going to replace it? Who will do the tasks that the abolished body has performed?”. That is a very significant question in regard to this amendment, appropriately put forward by my noble friend Lady Hayter, because although the Government have thrown out a few of what I might call titbits of information—that Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland will give a certain amount of advice and will be better resourced than they are at the moment, struggling though the Government are for resources on all sorts of matters—the Government have also indicated that, so far as enforcement of the law is concerned, where retailers or others have contravened legislation, the trading standards officers employed by local authorities are to do the job of helping the consumer.
Even if one accepts that to a degree and ignores the consumer work of the Office of Fair Trading—as noble Lords know, I have declared an interest as a past head, or director-general, of that body—there is still the huge problem that the National Consumer Council has over the years produced a great deal of research, many studies and publications which have informed the Government, informed the Office of Fair Trading and informed the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as it now is. What is the substitute for that going to be if the National Consumer Council is abolished?
This week I noticed, because I got a large envelope in my post, that in the closely related field of competition policy the Government have worked out what is going to happen—in, at the moment, 100-plus pages of information. At the moment it is a Green Paper, next it will be a White Paper and then there will be legislation. There is a great deal of detail on matters that we might come to shortly on Report. We are to have a merger of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. They are to constitute a competition and markets authority, and a whole lot of the Government’s Green Paper is taken up with how that is to be governed, what the governance is, how it is to work, various matters relating to antitrust merger policy and so on.
That is the sort of consultation detail—admittedly, the Government have not yet had the results of that consultation—that we in this House and the other place should have been given before the Public Bodies Bill was put forward listing whole hosts of bodies to be abolished without any explanation about any of them, except for a few titbits, as I have called them, of responses in this House and elsewhere by government Ministers about their reasons. We in this House are still very uncertain, even at the Report stage of the Bill, about why some of these bodies are to be abolished or merged or to have their functions transferred according to various schedules. Thank goodness that the Government have given way on Schedule 7 and withdrawn it; at least we do not have that huge pending tray of bodies that could possibly be abolished. Still, there is great uncertainty and, if she does not mind my saying so, I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hayter will agree that although the Government have said some things about this, they still have to do a lot of homework on what is to replace the work of the National Consumer Council.
The work of that body has been splendid. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was a distinguished chairman. Another distinguished former chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is sitting in her place. I am glad to say that the chairmen of the National Consumer Council, while always eminent and excellent people, were not necessarily Conservatives; Lord Young of Dartington, my noble friend Lord Whitty and others have been chairmen as well. A combination of political expertise and experience has been brought to bear on a body that has given advice over the years since it was set up in 1975, which is quite a long period now. Many Governments have benefited from that body. What is to replace it? Have the Government given a complete answer to that? I would be very glad if the Minister could say a little more on this amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Borrie has hinted, I declare a recent interest as a former chair of Consumer Focus. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is one of my predecessors, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who is here as well. This might seem to be a slightly esoteric debate, but it is not. Consumer Focus, the National Consumer Council and the other bodies that preceded Consumer Focus have done decades of work on behalf of consumers. They have influenced Governments, regulators, business behaviour and behaviour in the public sector. It is important that that role is preserved along with that level of expertise.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am an unqualified admirer of the work of citizens advice bureaux. I have quite a long personal association with it. I helped to found a branch of the CAB in a neighbouring borough in Wallsend on Tyneside in the early 1970s. From time to time, as a practising solicitor, I used to attend advice sessions in the bureau and have worked closely with a bureau in Newcastle for many years.
The proposal that is embodied in the Bill, however, is effectively the transfer of a strategic function currently carried out at national level by the national consumer body——as we have heard—to the CAB. This does not seem to be a sensible procedure so far as the bureau is concerned, particularly in present circumstances. At the moment, people up and down the country are facing extreme difficulties as a result of the financial situation in which local authorities find themselves. In Newcastle’s case, for example, the grant to the CAB has been reduced by 20 per cent. At the same time, although there is apparently a temporary reprieve in government support for financial advice, there is a real problem about maintaining nine debt advisers, who are currently unemployed—indeed, they were placed on notice until a reprieve was given and the £25 million national funding was extended for another year. There is, however, still considerable doubt about this. Equally, we are in the middle of a recession at the moment. Unemployment is rising. Problems of all kinds flow from that and present themselves at the bureau.
My final consideration is that we are likely to see significant changes in the legal aid and advice system, which again will throw greater pressure on local bureaux. It is in dealing with people’s individual difficulties and complaints that the work of the bureau is at its best and where it will need, I suspect, to be concentrated very significantly over the next few years against the very difficult background. The bureau is almost a franchise, in the sense that there is a national body but each bureau is independent. I frankly do not see how bureaux such as those in the north-east and elsewhere, facing the difficulties that they are, will be able to contribute significantly to the much more strategic consumer representational role that is envisaged under the transfer of responsibilities that will flow from the measures in the Bill. I urge that the matter be reviewed again. There is a great danger of undue responsibility being passed to an organisation that will simply not be capable of delivering but which will continue to provide a service to the very many people who require it now and will continue to require it in the future.
It is frankly the wrong choice for the bureau to have accepted to undertake the Government’s offer to do the kind of work that they would like the bureau to do nationally. It is a diversion from its real responsibility. For that reason alone—quite apart from the very cogent arguments advanced by my noble friends and shared in different parts of the House—I am very reluctant to see the Bill go through in its proposed form.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter. I thank all the other noble Lords—noble friends in particular—who have spoken on this topic. I declare an interest. I was, like many noble Lords in the Chamber today, involved at some point with the National Consumer Council. I was also a member of the advisory committee and served briefly under the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I enjoyed the experience very much. I also declare an interest as the chair of the Foundation for Credit Counselling, which has a relationship with the citizens advice bureau in the area of debt management and advice, to which my noble friend Lord Beecham referred.
At the end of the excellent debate on 11 January, the Minister said that she would reflect on the debate. Anyone reading the debate would have realised that its quality and the extensive references that were made from all round the House to the work of the NCC and Consumer Focus and to the worries that people had about the transfer had borne in on the Minister. I have read her words and took from them that she would not only reflect very hard on what she had heard during that debate but that she would talk to the responsible Minister in the other place, who, she assured us, would also be following the debate very closely. We are owed the outcome of those discussions and debates and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say when she responds.
In this debate, we have again been reminded that the points that seem to come from the discussion around the Bill as it affects consumer areas is that this is about a transfer of functions and not about an abolition of those functions, which must continue. A good society requires proper concern for all consumers—vulnerable as well as ordinary. There are a vast range of statutory and other functions that need to be carried out. The thinking that needs to go into that appears to be only partially developed. We talk about a loss of capacity across the piece because the current functions will not necessarily continue.
The loss of advocacy that has been referred to is not just for ordinary consumers but for the vulnerable, as has the loss of accountability both to Parliament and to the wider society that is in statute in the current provisions but might not continue to be as we move towards a solution that involves charities. We will lose the ability perhaps to gain access to information held in private companies and corporations. This will be a serious loss to Citizens Advice should it take up these responsibilities, as it will not have those powers. However, if it does have these powers, it will be a very strange body indeed, with its ability to interrogate and hold to account those who have customarily been outside its remit.
These and other points seem to suggest—in the words of others who spoke earlier in this debate—that there is quite a high hurdle for the Government to overcome to convince us and the public more generally that what they are doing is in the best interests of the consumers they seek to serve. Although we accept, as my noble friend Lord Whitty admitted, that rationalisation was necessary in what was becoming a very cluttered landscape, the Bill does not provide the solution. We wish to hear how the Government think it does. As was evidenced in the contributions to this debate and in Committee, the loss of the NCC or Consumer Focus will be felt right across the piece.
As my noble friend Lord Borrie reminded us, and my noble friend Lord Whitty echoed, we still do not really know what will happen. Where is the consultation document that was promised in the spring? Spring, as those of you who have been able to go outside today, has arrived. Indeed it almost feels like early summer, yet we still do not have that piece of paper. We need to have an engaged consultative process because we need to know where these functions are going. This is important. It is difficult to see what is happening. The document, when we see it, should give us some information, at the very least, about where the money will go that will support the functions that we have been talking about this evening. What will happen to the staff? How will we be assured that we will still have appropriate functions available to us? It is not really appropriate to act first and consult later but, as someone said, better late than never. It seems to me that an unanswerable case has been put forward this evening for a change in the way in which the consumer function will be dealt with. I look forward to hearing from the Minster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the debate today has reiterated the concerns about the proposals for reform expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other noble Lords in Committee in January. As then, I am grateful for their contributions. The Government will consult fully on these proposals and will pay close attention to the responses received, as well as to the points made today. I had hoped that the consultation would be issued before the restrictions placed on such publications by the forthcoming elections in Scotland and Wales on 5 May. That has unfortunately not been possible. Therefore, publication will now be after those elections have occurred, for which I am sorry, as I know are other noble Lords here today.
The Government firmly believe that the functions of Consumer Focus will be better carried out by the Citizens Advice service, comprising Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. If these functions are transferred, there will be no need for the current Consumer Focus organisation to continue to exist. That is why it is in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The Citizens Advice service is widely recognised and trusted by the public. Its unique selling point is that it has local representation through the citizens advice bureaux in communities throughout the country. It offers a presence on the high street where people can call in to get advice and information. It can cater for those who need personal contact—people who may not be comfortable with an online or telephone service. It can also assist vulnerable consumers face-to-face, identify their problems and help with solutions. While Consumer Focus currently assists around 7,000 customers directly, the Citizens Advice service advises and supports millions of individuals every year.
The alternative that the noble Baroness raises through her second amendment—to include Consumer Focus in Schedule 5 to the Bill—would keep it in existence but create a power to amend or transfer some of its functions. As she has made clear today, her amendments question the Government’s overall intent for the future role of the Citizens Advice service in research and advocacy on behalf of consumers. Therefore, I will say a little more about this.
Questions have been raised, in particular, about the capacity of the Citizens Advice service to engage at a national level with industry sector regulators and government and international bodies. On 5 March, Consumer Focus published a paper entitled Regulated Industries and the Consumer, which sets out its view of these responsibilities and the skills and capabilities needed to address them effectively. The Government take this issue very seriously. The Citizens Advice service already has a strong track record in policy advocacy. For example, Citizens Advice has launched several super-complaints, which have resulted in substantial improvements for consumers, notably about doorstep selling cooling-off rights and the payment protection insurance market. However, we do not claim that the Citizens Advice service currently has all the capabilities it needs to discharge such responsibilities and I do not believe that the leaders of those organisations would either.
It is important here that I make the point that I am talking about the national umbrella organisations Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland, not the individual, locally organised bureaux, which are independent of these national organisations. Under our proposals, funding would follow functions. This will allow the Citizens Advice service to acquire the extra skills and capabilities that it will need. This will be particularly to develop further capability in research and to increase the depth of its engagement with sectoral regulators and international consumer policy organisations.
A key issue will be to develop an effective operational model. Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland have unparalleled intelligence about consumer detriment from the front line of advice-giving. Their evidence base will expand further when they establish a successor to the national Consumer Direct helpline. They will need to bring together this evidence with the national research capability that Consumer Focus currently has, as well as its contacts with sectoral regulators and international consumer organisations. I am pleased that the respective chief executives of the three organisations are actively working together to make sure that a robust and credible operational model is established. There is still considerable time left to work through the detail. Completing the transition to the new arrangements will take until 2013, so we are not hurrying.
On other aspects of our proposals, I do not wish to take up your Lordships’ time by repeating what I said in Committee. However, I reiterate that the Government intend to provide sufficient funding for the Citizens Advice service to take on the consumer functions of the Office of Fair Trading, Consumer Focus and possibly other sectoral consumer bodies. Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland will be accountable to Parliament through this public funding, and to their trustees as independent charities.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
To be given all these powers and functions, and to carry them out well, they will need not just extra money but a lot of different training in the different branches of consumer affairs that they will have to deal with.
Baroness Wilcox
Indeed, and that is why the consultation has been in-depth, why it is continuing now and why the chief executives of the organisations are coming together to make sure that this changes over and happens well. These and other issues, such as whether and how statutory powers are transferred to the Citizens Advice service and what delivery models might be appropriate in Scotland and Wales, will be formally consulted on after the elections in May.
The intention of the Government in making these proposals is to provide the best possible service for consumers, to be their champion at a national and international level, and to provide information and advice in ways that suit them best. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I first thank my noble friends Lord Borrie, Lord Whitty, Lord Beecham and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. As a former chair and Consumer Minister, she well understands the work of the organisation, as was indicated. I bow to her judgment. I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Borrie that the whole move is still unsatisfactory. However, the point of this amendment is to help, rather than take on the whole of that issue. It is meant to help the Government by moving the NCC to Schedule 5, thereby increasing the flexibility that is open to them as they review the consumer environment.
As her own department is now finding out, and as my noble friend Lord Beecham has said, the CABs are already overwhelmed. My noble friend Lord Hunt said that in Birmingham all five are at risk, and there is to be a 20 per cent cut in Newcastle. All their energies will be put into what they do well at the moment. Advising individuals is simply not the same job as providing cross-market advice on how markets work for consumers. Someone yesterday said to me, “I like Citizens Advice. They are just like our local post office”. As the Minister said, Citizens Advice is indeed trusted, local and it knows you. However, combining it with Consumer Focus is rather like putting the post office together with a merchant bank such as Goldman Sachs. Just because they both do the same thing—handle money—you do not merge them. Just because Consumer Focus and Citizens Advice are interested in consumers, you do not merge them.
However, that is not in the proposal in front of us. I had expected the review of the consumer landscape to be revealed. I am grateful for the information, although not the content, which we will not now receive until after 5 May. However, the Government, in advance of announcing their consultation, already wanted to put Consumer Focus into the abolition bucket. That undermines and misunderstands the work of Consumer Focus, which is about consumer input into consumer policy. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, we risk the loss of the statutory powers if Citizens Advice is unable to take on those powers, and if Consumer Focus remains in Schedule 1. That is a big risk. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, we risk losing advocacy and representation.
The role of Citizens Advice is face-to-face. It is about individual consumers. It is not about national policy or taking on British Airways, Virgin, internet providers or big national organisations that can also treat consumers poorly. Although I welcome the reference to international and European consumer policy, that is quite different from representing individuals in need—over money, housing or family problems.
We are talking about a transfer of functions that were laid down in the 2007 Act. I fear that the Government want to abolish those functions; otherwise, why are they putting Consumer Focus in the abolition bucket? I have heard the words of the Minister, but there is an overwhelming case for not abolishing Consumer Focus, but for putting it into Schedule 5, under which some functions could be transferred if the review shows that that is the best way forward. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.”
Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, this is the first of three Measures before your Lordships' House this evening. It is the only one that changes existing law. The Care of Cathedrals Measure and the Mission and Pastoral Measure are consolidation Measures.
Earlier this afternoon we heard a reference from the Dispatch Box to the writings of PG Woodhouse. I was minded of that great chronicler of cathedrals and of clergy life, Anthony Trollope, who once wrote that a lawyer,
“can find it consistent with his dignity to turn wrong into right, and right into wrong, to abet a lie, nay to create, disseminate, and with all the play of his wit, give strength to the basest of lies, on behalf of the basest of scoundrels”.
I am sure that that does not apply to any noble and learned Lords in this House. Those who have laboured on these three Measures—lawyers among them—have had quite the opposite intent. The Measures are about clarification, consistency and transparency. It may be convenient for your Lordships if I speak to all three of them now.
The Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure amends the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1986. It is concerned with two matters. The first is parochial fees that are payable in connection with the occasional offices of the church, principally weddings and funerals. The second is fees that are payable to the ecclesiastical judges and the church's legal officers—chancellors, diocesan registrars and others—for carrying out their official duties. I will deal first with parochial fees. A quarter of a century's experience has shown that there are aspects of the current legislation that do not well serve either the church or those to whom it offers its parochial ministry—which means, in principle, every person in England. The 1986 Measure contains a definition of “parochial fees” that has proved to be rather obscure. The General Synod's Legal Advisory Commission found it difficult to say with certainty precisely what the current definition covered, particularly in the case of crematorium funerals, which are now very common. The commission advised that the definition should be amended to make it clear which matters were covered by parochial fees.
The Measure before your Lordships' House does that. The duties that give rise to the payment of fees are itemised in a schedule. They include marriages, which have always been the subject of parochial fees. Also itemised are the different types of funeral that take place nowadays, not just those that take place in church. The opportunity has also been taken to include some of the newer occasional offices for which the Church of England service books now make provision, including services of prayer and thanksgiving after civil marriage. This should mean that people who wish to have such a service will know from the statutory table of fees exactly what they will be expected to pay, by contrast with the uncertainties of the current arrangements for these services, with fees varying from place to place.
The Measure provides a power, subject to synodical and parliamentary control, to amend the itemised list by order should that prove necessary in future. A certain amount of flexibility has therefore been built in to the new legislative framework. Parochial fees orders will continue to be made by the Archbishops’ Council, subject to the approval of the General Synod, and will continue to be laid as statutory instruments before both Houses of Parliament under the negative procedure. The existing practice has been for orders to be made annually so that the fees can be adjusted to keep up with inflation. The new Measure provides a useful facility to enable orders to be made for up to five years at a time, with inbuilt increases in the prescribed fees.
Another useful facility provided by the Measure is a power to specify the costs and expenses that are to be included in the statutory fees. Under the existing statutory framework, there is considerable variation between parishes on services that are charged as extras over and above the statutory fees. This can lead to the unsatisfactory situation, for example, where people who are getting married are surprised to be asked for substantial sums for administration, vergers’ fees and so on, in addition to the published statutory fees, a situation which a nationally applicable table of parochial fees was always intended to avoid.
There are, of course, always some genuinely optional extras that people will ask for, such as professional music and flowers. It is not proposed that these should be included in the fees that will be prescribed in the parochial fees order. However, it is envisaged that in future fees orders will specify as included in the statutory fee certain costs and expenses that are necessarily incurred in making the church available for the service. As with parochial fees orders generally, the exercise of the power will be subject to the scrutiny of the General Synod and of both Houses of Parliament.
The other main change that the Measure will bring about, while legally significant, is essentially a matter of tidying up. Under the current statutory framework, parochial fees are divided into two categories: fees payable to the incumbent and fees payable to the parochial church council. Under the Measure, fees continue to be payable to parochial church councils but the incumbent’s fee is replaced by a fee payable to the diocesan board of finance. This is not nearly as significant a change as it might seem. In practice, more than 90 per cent of incumbents assign their parochial fees by deed to the diocesan board of finance when they are appointed. They are then paid the full diocesan stipend. The small number of incumbents who do not assign their fees to the diocese in this way nevertheless declare their fee income to the diocese by sending in regular returns. Their stipends are then reduced accordingly. No one currently not assigning fees will be obliged to do so; there is a provision for them to opt out if they so wish.
Possibly contrary to public perception, parochial fees no longer benefit the incumbent directly—it is a long time now since that was the case. In providing for what used to be the incumbent’s fees to be payable to the diocesan board of finance, the Measure simply puts current practice on a proper statutory footing. This change, which reflects the reality of the situation, is in the interests of transparency and will provide legal clarity as to the ownership of the fees.
I now turn to the second aspect—
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving way. He has not mentioned the position of non-stipendiary priests, who frequently take funerals and marriages and so on. Many parishes, such as my own, have a non-stipendiary in charge of them. Can he clarify the situation? I believe that it was made clear during the Ecclesiastical Committee’s deliberations that they will be paid directly as they are not receiving a stipend.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for raising that important point for clarification. This Measure will aid the process because diocesan boards of finance will now be encouraged to have a policy. That will mean that not only self-supporting ordained ministers but, for example, readers, who in certain rural areas in my diocese take a considerable number of funerals, will have provision made for their remuneration. Therefore, again, this is a useful outcome of tidying up the procedures.
I turn to the second aspect of the Measure—the changes relating to ecclesiastical judges’ and legal officers’ fees. Fees are payable to diocesan chancellors in respect of their judicial work—principally the exercise of the faculty jurisdiction in respect of church buildings and their contents. They are also payable to diocesan registrars for the wide range of legal work that they undertake for the bishop and other officials and bodies in the life of the diocese. These fees are prescribed annually in fees orders that are ultimately laid before both Houses of Parliament as statutory instruments. These fees orders are made by a specially constituted statutory body—the Fees Advisory Commission.
Under existing statutory provisions, the commission is constituted in such a way that half its membership consists of lawyers. The current balance was considered by the commission to be not entirely satisfactory. Following a review of its constitution and functions, two specific changes were proposed, and these are provided for in the Measure that is now before your Lordships’ House.
The first of these changes is the reconstitution of the Fees Advisory Commission so that its membership consists of three elements: the users of the legal services, in the form of a bishop, a Church Commissioner and a chairman of the diocesan board of finance; the providers of legal services, represented by a chancellor, a provincial registrar and a diocesan registrar; and an independent element in the form of persons appointed by the Church of England’s Appointments Committee.
A minor change is also made to the commission’s functions. It will be required to keep itself informed of the duties of the judges and legal officers who receive the fees that the commission prescribes. This is intended to ensure that in arriving at levels of fees, the commission does so on a properly informed basis.
As the material contained in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee shows, the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure received detailed and thorough scrutiny during its passage through the Synod, both in committee and at the revision stage in full Synod. It received overwhelming majorities in all three houses of the General Synod at final approval. The Ecclesiastical Committee is of the opinion that the Measure is expedient and I am pleased to commend it to your Lordships’ House.
I shall not need to detain your Lordships long on the other two Measures. As I mentioned, they are both consolidation Measures. They do not change the law; they simply consolidate in single Measures all the enactments relating to particular subjects. Perhaps I might add that this is something that Parliament itself might consider doing with secular legislation.
The Care of Cathedrals Measure consolidates the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990, which made provision for the care and conservation of cathedrals, and a number of subsequent enactments that either added to its provisions or amended it. The Mission and Pastoral Measure consolidates the Pastoral Measure 1983—itself a consolidation of a number of enactments that were “designed to make better provision for the cure of souls”—together with a long list of subsequent enactments that have amended it in various ways. In fact, consolidation of the Pastoral Measure was first suggested by the chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who has asked me to say how sorry he is not to be in his place this evening. If I may respectfully say so, that was a most helpful suggestion and it is one that we have been pleased to adopt. We saw the benefit of doing the same with the care of cathedrals legislation. I therefore also commend these Measures to your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we are debating three ecclesiastical Measures tonight and I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for his very clear explanation. The Ecclesiastical Committee has considered these matters and is of the view that they are expedient. It is noticeable that in the General Synod there was unanimous support for the Care of Cathedrals Measure. There was also almost unanimous support for the Mission and Pastoral Measure. In relation to those two Measures, such support is clearly significant. With the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure, it is noticeable that in Synod the votes in the House of Clergy were 99 for the ayes and 10 for the noes, and, in the House of Laity, 115 for the ayes and nine for the noes, so there was clearly a moderate measure of disagreement. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would be prepared to comment on the debate and on the reasons why some members of the Synod opposed the Measure.
I have of course taken note that in its 229th report the Ecclesiastical Committee is very clear on these Measures, as was the right reverend Prelate. The committee points out the defects in the current legislation and the recommendation of the Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee. Reading the various papers that have been produced for our debate tonight, it is noticeable that some of the arguments were put forward to the Revision Committee—particularly, first, that the Measure breaches the right in general law of any person to enter into a contract to carry out services and to receive payment, and, secondly, that it possibly breaches human rights. However, the advice received by the Revision Committee looked pretty persuasive to me. As I said, I also noted that many other points were put to the Revision Committee, and they appear to have been considered very carefully. Overall, I am very much persuaded that these Measures should be supported by your Lordships’ House.
I also noted from the deliberation that took place on 30 November that, in an answer to my noble friend Lord Bilston, we were reassured that payments to choirs, bellringers, organists, florists and suchlike are not covered by the statutory fees. My noble friend reminded noble Lords that he led a strike nearly 60 years ago, when he wanted to increase the stipend—I assume this was as a choirboy—from a shilling to two shillings:
“We had a very recalcitrant clergyman who wouldn’t concede that point. I thought it was quite a legitimate increase. So we had to go and sit on the church wall for an hour during the month of March—as you know, the tax issues were very relevant then. I led the choir out to sit on the wall for an hour before the next marriage. We are talking about marriages or funerals. After the hour, the vicar came out and offered us the two shillings and we went back and sang with gusto”.
It is a remarkable read and it pays testament to the thoroughness with which both the Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee have gone through these matters. I am sure that we should support them.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quoted Lord Bilston. It made me feel very nostalgic for the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I served for 40 years—probably a record. I also served on the General Synod for 10 years. I am bound to say that not every piece of legislation sent by General Synod to your Lordships’ House and the other place had my warm approval. It is incredibly important, as we have an established church, that both your Lordships’ House and the other place have a proper opportunity to debate the Measures that come before us. I am very glad to see that the noble Lord is nodding so vigorously in assent. I am very proud of the fact that we have an established church. Of course, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter made the point—very gently—in his extremely cogent and clear speech, that every single person in England is entitled to the ministrations and services of the Church of England. That is something which people of all faiths and none frequently have cause to be truly thankful for. It is important, therefore, that we should be debating these things.
I would make two very brief points. The first expands on what I said in my intervention. The Church of England, particularly in rural areas, is becoming increasingly dependent upon the services of non-stipendiary ministers and of lay people. There is something good about that, but there is also something that the church needs to devote very real and constructive attention to; the business of the retirement age of clergy. There are many clergy over the age of 70 who wish to carry on but who are not able to do so. I do not want to embarrass someone by mentioning him by name; I have not had a chance to consult him. But very recently, an extremely popular vicar in a very major Lincolnshire parish—my home county, as distinct from my county by adoption, Staffordshire—did not wish to retire. He was in full and vigorous health—after all there are many in your Lordships’ House, including me, who are over the age of 70 and still play, one hopes, a constructive part in the affairs of the nation. This vicar did not wish to retire. His parishioners were distraught at the thought of his retiring. Yet he had no alternative. It is a pity when we have a rigid retirement age. Of course, if people want to go beforehand, fair enough. But we are increasingly dependent on those who have retired and then give their services, particularly in rural areas. Without them the Church of England would not be able to give the ministration it does to the people of this country. I hope it is something that will be borne in mind in future deliberations of General Synod and of the Archbishops’ Council, et cetera.
The second point I want to make very briefly is on the cathedrals Measure. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter did not really deal in any detail with this. He merely said it was a consolidation Measure, which it truly is—a very good one at that. I warmly commend it. It gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the centrality of the cathedral in every diocese; the fact that our cathedrals—particularly our great medieval cathedrals—are among the greatest, if not the greatest, buildings in this country. Who could imagine Ely without its cathedral; Lincoln or Durham without their cathedrals; Salisbury without its cathedral? Exeter? One could go on.
Lord Cormack
Chichester, indeed—a good interjection. In the 19th century its spire blew down, as I remember, and that underlines the vulnerability of any great but old and fragile building. The church does shoulder—very willingly, I am glad to say—the burden of sustaining these extremely wonderful buildings, but there is a national responsibility beyond that.
My very first parliamentary exercise was to introduce the Historic Churches Preservation Bill way back in 1971 in the other place. From that we got state aid for churches, and later we got state aid for cathedrals. Without the money that has come more latterly through English Heritage, our cathedrals would have been in a much more parlous state than they are, notwithstanding the dedicated service that those who minister within them give. We ought to register in this brief debate that no country deserves to call itself civilised if it neglects its greatest architectural glories.
It is good that in this consolidation Measure the church is tidying up its own approach, making it more cohesive and coherent—I warmly commend that—but there is also a continuing obligation upon us to ensure that the nation outside the Church of England plays its part in ensuring that these great marvels of ecclesiastical architecture can be enjoyed by future generations.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. We have had many opportunities in different capacities—in the arts and heritage group, once chaired by the noble Lord, through to many other hats that we wear—to see the increased pressure on cathedrals, with York, Canterbury and so on having bits literally falling off. One wag asked why we do not have the tower sponsored by Burger King. More seriously, the Church of England does not want to go in the direction of a state fabric authority as in France. There are very many reasons why France and Britain do not have the same history, but in this connection it might be a marker for the future; the situation is increasingly unstable. With 14 cathedrals knocking simultaneously at the door of every merchant banker in the country, we might ask whether or not it is proper for HMG to be more forthcoming about its public policy assessment of the scenarios for the future. I do not know what toes I am treading on in saying that, but these questions have very wide ramifications.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for so expertly setting out the contents of these three Measures. The Measures referring to the care of cathedrals and the ecclesiastical fees might well be described as tidying-up pieces of legislation, but that in no way should detract from their importance. The way in which these items, which are most timely, have been handled—not only through Synod, which has been extremely thorough and careful over its deliberations, but also, if I may say, through the Ecclesiastical Committee—gives me confidence to commend these three Measures to the House.
Lord Newby
I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, about the immense amount of work that has been done to get the Measures tabled, and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his introduction of them.
The Measures do not deal with the level of fees. They state how they are to be set—there is a great infrastructure for that—but there is a big issue about how we should set the fee. When I raised that question in the Ecclesiastical Committee, the response was that, at the moment, if anyone asked the church to justify the figures in terms of actual costs, it would be hard put to do so. An attempt was to be made to work up a realistic estimate of the cost of providing authorised ministry buildings, and so forth.
If I may say so, that will require the judgment of Solomon. First, the amount of authorised ministry—I declare an interest as a clergy spouse—varies so enormously from case to case. Certainly with funerals, the amount of time that can be taken where there has been a tragic death in the family is phenomenal, and is one of the most important things that the clergy do. That is extremely difficult.
I also hope that, without wanting to ramp the fees up, the committee or sub-committee that looks into it will not just look at the marginal costs. Going back to the point about cathedrals, you cannot have a wedding in a church unless the church has been kept up for the years before the wedding. Simply charging for so many hours of the clergywoman's time plus a bit of heating costs and whatever does not get to the bottom of the real value.
I also had a slightly mischievous thought when the right reverend Prelate was talking about a national table of fees. Some churches are extremely sought after, particularly for weddings. It is not because the population of the parish is particularly devout. It occurred to me that without necessarily adopting the Ryanair approach to pricing for churches, there is a different quality between a wedding conducted in a country church in July and in an inner-city church in January. I wonder whether it might be possible to contemplate seasonal variation.
Lord Newby
We might need to have a rebate in the event of rain. Some people get married in a particular kind of church at a particular time of year purely because they are paying for a better facility. In these harsh economic times, the church ought at least to explore that possibility.
Lord Bates
Having read the Measures, I was intrigued particularly by Parts 6 and 7 and wanted to question a little further. My prompt for asking this question was a walk on Saturday through my home town of Gateshead. I walked past about six different church buildings with my father. As we were walking, we were estimating the congregations in each of those six different church buildings, which happened to include two Anglican, a Baptist, a Salvation Army and a Methodist church. We estimated that the congregations in the six buildings were in the region of 150 or 200 for all of them.
As this is a consolidation measure, which deals in Part 6 with the use of places of worship, one wonders about underutilisation of church buildings and how that could be addressed. When he comes to respond to this short debate, perhaps the right reverend Prelate can comment on what consideration is given to better use of existing buildings, because there are a lot of opportunities there.
That links with Part 7, which has some excellent language which talks about local ecumenical partnerships working with different denominations in pursuit of, in that quaint phrase, the cure of souls, in the local area. That provision within the mission in Part 7, if replicated in the building regulations in Part 6, could lead to some interesting collaborations which would be for the benefit of communities. There are now many ways in which those buildings could be used. They could be used for schools, going back to their original purpose. Why could not the church building be used for them? They could be used for housing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Is the noble Lord aware that 40 per cent of all free schools are religious schools? Does he agree that in fact there is considerable concern about the nature of those schools—not, of course, the Church of England schools? I wonder whether he is right to encourage more free schools. I am not sure that that gets the balance right.
Lord Bates
Faith schools have an outstanding record. The churches were in education long before the Government ever got into the business. I would like to encourage more. Housing is also a crying need, particularly in rural areas. I was talking to people in the Ministry of Justice last week, who mentioned the 80 per cent of prisoners who come out not having anywhere to stay. That would seem to be very much within the mission—not the mission set out in the Measure, but the mission as originally espoused, which was to look after the prisoners and the homeless, to feed the hungry and to clothe people.
I am simply saying that there seem to be lots of opportunities, particularly in the age of the big society, for those marvellous facilities in the centre of communities to be used much more than they are. I would be grateful to know what consideration has been given to that in the preparation of the Measures.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in response to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asked about the Synod debate and was speculating on the reason why people might have voted against. It is perhaps worth saying that Synod is a large body of 470 members, but we have no Whips. I speculate, but it may well be that a few wish to register regret at what could be seen as the final logical stage in a long process stretching back over many decades. That would not be unknown in your Lordships' House.
In the Ecclesiastical Committee, Peter Bottomley asked:
“Is there a way of indicating gently whether those opposed, not convinced or not agreeing were what you might call modernists, traditionalists or individualists?”.
To which Mr Tim Allen replied:
“From the choice of those three, probably the best answer is individualists”.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that when he has a little spare time from the Front Benches over there, he would make a very good shop steward for choristers.
I am very grateful for the reminder of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the church is the church of the English people. Our word parish comes from two Greek words, It means “the dwellers alongside”. I relate back to what the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, about our churches. Some churches may have small congregations but we are not congregational churches, we are parish churches. Already, the provisions of Section 6 are enabling in many churches to be used much more creatively than they have in the past. Certainly, if you go back into the long distant past, they have been used for a whole variety of things—schoolrooms, yes, although I am not going to be tempted into a debate about schools—but other functions as well. Particularly in rural areas, but I could also take you to churches in urban Plymouth, churches are now used seven days a week in the service of the community, which is precisely what the parish church exists to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reminded me that he has spent four years checking ecclesiastical legislation and declaring it expedient. So when I am in one of my grumpy old man moods, worrying about the pace of change, I now know who to blame.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for pointing to the centrality of cathedrals in the life of the diocese, and the importance of us shouldering together the responsibility for maintaining these wonderful buildings. I say again that our church buildings are probably better maintained now than they ever have been. It is a huge tribute to those who worship within them, but also to the wider community. My own cathedral church is two-thirds of the way through raising £9 million. Much of that has been raised by the people of the wider community of Devon. We look to the support that we receive from agencies of the state, or associated with the state. I pay tribute to the work of English Heritage. A lot of us are hugely grateful for the continuation, albeit in a more limited way, of the listed places of worship grants scheme, which is a real help to many parish churches. I am grateful for those, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Laming, for making those same points.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for that recognition of the huge amount of work that goes into providing pastoral ministry and how it varies from place to place. It has never been the intention that a parochial fee should be set to realistically cover all those costs—including the dilapidation costs of the building, if you want to call them that. It is intended that it should be fair and affordable, and should not place any of these occasional offices beyond the reach of those who need them. The noble Lord tempts me into some interesting byways, with his suggestions of seasonal variations and perhaps a higher fee for a service taken by a bishop and a lower one for a service taken by a Lord Spiritual. I will not be tempted on that.
The only thing that I have not touched upon is the retirement age of clergy. As someone who could retire this summer, and will be forced to retire in five years’ time, I am quite tempted to respond personally to that. The retirement age is at present prescribed by statute as 70, although bishops have discretion to allow incumbents to remain for up to two years. Indeed, archbishops can exercise discretion in relation to bishops, but only for up to one year. The church will consider that in the future, in the light of the raising of the retirement age generally, but change will require an amending Measure. It may be that your Lordships, having already heard me speak seven times this week, would like to keep the present retirement age enforcement. I commend the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure to the House.
Care of Cathedrals Measure
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Care of Cathedrals Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
Mission and Pastoral Measure
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:05 - Division on Amendment 16A - Ayes: 87 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 16A disagreed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am still surprised as to why the Government are seeking to move forward with local enterprise partnerships, leaving nothing at all at the regional level. I have been hoping for some time that there would be a measure of movement on the part of the Government, and I hope to hear about that from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
The East Midlands Development Agency, better known as EMDA, was formed in 1999 and for the past 12 years has done a good job providing help and support to the economy of the East Midlands. It works regionally and sub-regionally where that is appropriate, so it is disappointing that the Government are seeking to abolish this RDA. I am not against reform per se, but it seems a bit over the top and creates a system that is unable to meet the needs of businesses and meet the regional challenges to create jobs and support the regional economy.
Noble Lords will be aware that the East Midlands is made up of six counties. It is the third largest and third most rural region in England, and has a population of 4.3 million people. There are well over a quarter of a million businesses in the region, and it is where I worked for many years. It is made up of largely rural counties with principal town and cities. I should say that I have great affection for the East Midlands. Compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, it is a region of relatively low wages and needs a measure of co-ordination and intervention at this level to protect jobs, boost job creation and enable businesses to flourish with the right sort of support. I am aware that other noble Lords who wish to speak in the debate will refer to the RDAs in their own areas, but I think that a recurring theme will be that at the regional level, this is a big mistake. Local enterprise partnerships on their own will not fill the gap. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16A tabled in my name and in the names of several of my noble friends. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I am not against reform—I welcome it—but I am against the abolition of the RDAs in a wholesale way. I raised a number of questions on the abolition of the RDAs in our debate at the Committee stage and the Minister was kind enough to write to me with a detailed response. I have to say at the outset that I still have very deep concerns about the abolition of the RDAs, both in terms of the impact on economic growth and the process itself.
I turn first to the Government’s response to the report of the Public Administration Select Committee entitled Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State. The response is brimful of bravado, which I would say is misplaced in this context, but I digress. I refer to paragraph 6 of the response, which deals with the £2.6 billion that will flow from savings on public bodies over the spending review period and the estimate of a reduction of at least £11 billion per year by 2014-15. It has been estimated in some quarters that it could cost as much as £1.4 billion to wind down the RDAs and complete existing programmes. Yet in his letter, the Minister tells me that it is not possible at this stage to quantify the costs of RDA closure. I am sure he is correct, but if so, how can the Government state categorically that total savings as a result of this legislation will be at least £2.6 billion during the spending review period? It would be helpful to have a more detailed breakdown of the savings, especially after the extraordinary hyperbole we heard at the beginning of the process—not, I hasten to add, from the Minister.
I turn now to the issue of consultation, which I raised in Committee. I welcome the increased consultation that is now a part of the Bill thus far, although my noble friend Lord Hunt will move further amendments on consultation in due course. But in relation to RDAs, the Minister told me in his letter that:
“We have not so far undertaken a formal consultation on the abolition of the RDAs”.
I hope that as a consequence of this Bill consultation will in future take place at the appropriate time—before announcements are made and legislation is introduced. I note from the Minister’s letter that the Government are obliged to consult before laying any order to abolish the RDAs, assuming that they remain part of the Bill, and that they will meet this requirement. Personally, I think that such a consultation is far too late in the process. I also asked in Committee about the role of government offices. The Minister told me that BIS is working to put in place a new economic development delivery landscape and that this is the role that the network of small BIS local teams will be designed to fulfil. This is reinventing the wheel. In the main, the government offices do an excellent job at the moment. They may well need reforming but reform should not mean abolition; it should mean just some readjustment of the process which we have had thus far.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, in Committee I dealt with the historical debate in the Labour movement and the very significant contribution made by my noble friend Lord Prescott and by Bruce Millan as a European Commissioner. I want to concentrate today on the future. I declare an interest in that my daughter-in-law works for Yorkshire First. However, my thoughts and comments are based on conversations with people in the north-west region and within the Northwest Regional Development Agency, which covered my former constituency following the creation of the agency in 1997.
My only interest in this issue is whether the new structures can deliver. I say that in the context of having spent almost 40 years of my life living in a region, or a sub-region, of the United Kingdom where historically there has been heavy unemployment. Delivery has been of primary concern to the Institute of Directors, which supports change but in its recent briefings has questioned whether LEPs have the resources, the focus and expertise to be able to deliver. In one of its most recent briefings, it states on resources that,
“concerns remain that without any central government funding at all, LEPs may quickly become ineffective talking shops. Government will need to allow a small amount of funding as catalysing capital for private sector investment as well as setting out how LEPs will be able to fund the small economic secretariats that will be needed to serve the bodies and their directors … some provision of funds will have to be considered in order to provide: (a) basic administration and secretariat functions … and; (b) economic advice resources, such as economists and infrastructure expertise”.
In other words, it says that, starved of resources, the LEPs will be in difficulty.
On expertise and the ability of the LEPs to focus, the IoD states that,
“there remain notable concerns that the proposals submitted to government by many bidding local authorities already suggest a wide array of duties, from business support and inward investment to skills development and social regeneration. In many cases, the bids submitted resemble mini-RDA submissions, with all the potential for additional cost, loss of focus … Many of the plans submitted to government in the form of LEP proposals looked and felt like wholesale plagiarism of RDA regional plans and activities”.
We need a far narrower focus. How can an organisation in the form of an LEP, with minimal resources, possibly cover a wide-ranging brief which includes transport, planning, infrastructure, housing delivery, development of growth hubs, local business regulation, skills in conjunction with Jobcentre Plus, leverage of funding from the private sector, development of financial entities for renewable energy projects and digital infrastructural projects? Some LEPs are talking in terms of inward investment initiatives, joint exhibition stands overseas and the organisation of European funding. In my view, they simply cannot do all that work with the resources that they have available and without the necessary expertise. They need far greater focus.
What I find really worrying is that the close relationship between larger regional employers and the regional structures is now in jeopardy, yet it is those links which more often than not have been the source of inward investment leads. Experience among agencies in the north shows that most of the foreign investment projects that came to the regions came through regional-partner contacts and not through the centre; that is, Whitehall. Many global players will simply not play ball with some of the more inexperienced LEPs, which they believe will lack the muscle to open the doors necessary to facilitate inward investment.
I accept that some LEPs will seek to be dynamic and ambitious, but a lot will not. Cash-starved LEPs will simply not attract the staff. In some areas of the country, regional policy and strategy will simply wither on the vine. I find it difficult to accept that a few BIS reps, genuinely committed to the regions as they may well be, along with the proposed UKTI-nominated single national contractor, will be able to maintain the contacts that the RDAs have so painstakingly built up over the years. The task requires more than a few well motivated and talented individuals from the centre, subject to Civil Service rotation, if regional strategies are to work, particularly in periods of recession.
The idea that local authority-driven LEPs can provide the levels of service required is questionable. Furthermore, it is my experience that large employers often steer clear of local authorities as they are often seen as too politicised and unprofessional. We learn from history in places such as Cumbria, where I have spent most of my life, that LEPs—and, I suppose, the West Cumbria Development Agency, which had all the characteristics of an embryo LEP—can work and be successful. However, it had the nuclear industry in the background. The problem is that only too often you end up with overlapping provision, inter-authority conflict and jealousies. It is a recipe for turning off the big players in a big way, and we will suffer potentially unless we can sort out that problem.
I find it extraordinary that we are all turning our back on the experience of regions throughout the European Union, which are doing precisely the reverse by developing and maintaining their regional structures as they compete for intra-Community infrastructural funds and inward investment. They will obviously place far more emphasis on regional GDP figures than will be the case in the United Kingdom. Our Government will no doubt concentrate on pushing national GDP as the measure of success so as to appease domestic concerns, thereby avoiding a more realistic focus on possible declines in regional GDP, which is what really matters. This is important because the RDAs have made a considerable contribution to the increase in regional GDP over all these years.
I find myself asking simple questions. Will efforts to secure regional funding from the European Union’s various regional and sectional assistance pots be as vigorously pursued when they may become more dependent on Whitehall initiatives? We again cannot be sure. I note the assurances in the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, but will the centre be as effective in driving the innovation agenda and the links with the universities? What about the handling of green and environmental infrastructural projects such as barrages, environmental parks and large-scale environmental clean-ups? These are often driven at a local level, but it is only with regional intervention that they seem to take off.
For example, in my former constituency there is a beautiful site for a potential large regional project—the RNAD dump at Broughton Moor. There had been some pollution on the site from munitions in storage after the Second World War. I managed to negotiate with Lewis Moonie—now the noble Lord, Lord Moonie—who was then a Defence Minister, for the local authority to take over that site for the sum of £1, which would compensate for the considerable funds that would have to be invested in environmental clean-up. Eleven years later almost nothing has happened.
There have been lots of false starts, and even today proposals for the site are still under consideration. What went wrong? The councils own the site. The Northwest Regional Development Agency had offered millions for its development as long as the councils could firmly establish the future development of the site for housing, leisure or something substantial. The council simply did not have the drive to pull the project together. In my view, if the Northwest Regional Development Agency had owned that site and had been responsible for its development, things would have been very different. With its funding, experience, contacts and drive, we would have been well on the way to a visionary use of one of Cumbria’s most important potential development sites. With the wind-up of the RDAs the writing is on the wall for these types of projects, and that worries me.
What about the future of RDA work in the film and creative industries? I cannot see the LEPs getting their heads around project work in those sectors. Do we have confidence in the arrangements for business advice to SMEs? Do we believe that a national website, along with back-up from cash-starved, local authority-funded LEPs, can deliver business support services on the scale required in a downturn?
On the treatment of assets and liabilities, we were told in Committee that there would not be a fire sale—but will there? In his letter, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said:
“RDA asset disposal plans have been developed taking account of the principles set out at high level in the Local Growth White Paper. These include maximising value for money from these assets, ensuring liabilities follow assets, and passing control down to the local level where possible”.
“Maximising value for money” means selling off before assets fall further in value in the market that we are in at the moment. “Passing control down to the local level” means selling off to local authorities where they can afford to purchase. That is what I understand is going on at the moment. Plans are being laid for those purchases where possible.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I very much endorse what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I remind him that Marx stated that history repeats itself the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. I am not sure whether if it repeats itself in this Bill it will be tragedy or farce. It certainly poses considerable threat to the regions of this country.
On the day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces what he describes as a Budget for growth, it is paradoxical that we should be debating the abolition of business-led regional development agencies that have played a significant part in both safeguarding and creating jobs. It is true, as my noble friend Lady Royall reminded us, that in reflecting different regional economies and needs their performance has necessarily been somewhat variable. However, as the BIS Committee pointed out, there was strong support for RDAs and regional structures from the private sector, and especially, and significantly, the Engineering Employers’ Federation, particularly in the West Midlands and the north.
There are significant worries, expressed by the committee, about the loss of local knowledge and the risks of a “disorderly competitive scramble” within regions, as well as serious questions about the disposal of RDA assets which, in its view, are,
“potentially of massive importance to the success or failure of Local Enterprise Partnerships”—
the LEPs, which the Government apparently see as successor bodies to RDAs. Yet these LEPs will have neither power nor resources, nor a role in inward investment, innovation or access to finance, nor the European funds, including in particular the ERDF.
These are arguments of general application, like those over the severely truncated funding reflected in the Regional Growth Fund, just about one-third of which was invested annually via RDAs. However, I want particularly to concentrate on the north-east, the very region singled out by Vince Cable last year, before his halo slipped a little, as the one with the strongest case for retaining a regional agency.
One North East has invested £2.7 billion across the region, from the Tweed to the Tees, over the past 11 years, attracting or helping to create 19,000 companies and creating or saving 160,000 jobs. It has led the way in developing the green economy, from support for Nissan and its electric vehicles, to wind turbine production and offshore wind power and, in the past year, a £60 million investment in a low-carbon initiative in the Tees Valley, and much else besides. It has promoted engineering apprenticeships; established a £125 million fund, Finance for Business North East; and attracted £100 million from the European Investment Bank and £300 million from the ERDF for the period 2007-13. In the past year alone, it attracted 55 foreign and five UK companies to the region, creating 2,000 new jobs and safeguarding 5,000 more. Its record on tourism has been remarkable. Tourism is worth about £4 billion to the regional economy, and the north-east has had the biggest growth in tourism of anywhere in the country outside London. Yet all this is now at risk due to an unusual and unhealthy combination of fragmentation of the agencies and centralisation of some of the functions.
Today the Government have announced the creation of more enterprise zones, despite the doubts expressed about the previous round of such zones by, among others, the Work Foundation; Centre for Cities; again, and significantly, the Engineering Employers’ Federation; and, despite the less-than-glowing experience within the north-east region itself, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool. Too often, as at Canary Wharf, the Metro Centre in Gateshead and other out-of-town developments, zones created in the 1980s produced retail and office developments with little in the way of the manufacturing industry now recognised on all sides as essential to the future prosperity of the nation.
What, one might ask, will be different this time, especially in the absence of strong, strategic bodies with the skill and resources to secure the kind of development and workforce skills so desperately needed? It is interesting to note, too, that today the Chancellor announced the welcome investment of £100 million in four new science facilities—at Cambridge, Norwich, Harwell and Daresbury—but I contrast that with a cut of £8 million which should have gone to the Newcastle Science City development, started by the previous Government, which the RDA had pledged but which it is not now able to provide.
This brings me to the question of assets, which I raised in Committee and which my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Campbell-Savours referred to. I received no satisfactory answer to those questions—perhaps, in fairness to the Minister, because, as so often proves to be the case, decisions are made these days long before any consideration is given to, let alone any conclusions reached about, their financial consequences. I understand that the North East Economic Partnership—an unofficial grouping, as yet, of local authorities and business leaders in the region—has submitted a bid in relation to the retention of the RDA’s assets for the benefit of the region. However, it seems that there is little likelihood of this bid succeeding, so the assets will not be transferred, thus denying the region a much needed resource.
This week the Newcastle Journal—a newspaper not, in the wonderful phrase of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, a “town hall Pravda”—writes:
“The Journal has been told the message coming out of Government is that the assets will not be passed on. Vince Cable’s Department for Business is currently considering the future of the assets. If they are handed to the Partnership”—
that is, the North East Economic Partnership—
“it will fund their work in trying to bring in major new firms and lobby on behalf of the region in Whitehall. Also up for grabs is £62.5m worth of loan repayments handed out in public funding over the last decade. The North East Economic Partnership has told the Government it is vital this money is kept in the region, so as to be used for further job creation”.
That is the united voice of business and local government of all political colours in the north-east.
I ask the Minister to tell us the current position. What meetings have Ministers held with north-east councils and business leaders about the issue of assets? What criteria will be applied in coming to a decision, and when will such a decision be made? Will he give an assurance that there will not be, in the phrase that has been much used tonight, a fire sale of assets in what is, after all, a languishing market, to be applied to national deficit reduction?
Finally, I turn to the question of the actual decision about abolition. Most of us have taken it as read that since the Government announced the abolition of RDAs last year and included them in the Bill, this was settled government policy. I was therefore surprised to read in the letter to my noble friend Lady Royall—which has already been referred to; and signed, of course, by the Minister—that not only have the Government,
“not so far undertaken a formal consultation on the abolition of the RDAs”,
but that they would,
“consult before laying any order”.
Will he therefore assure the House that such a consultation will take place in every region and, most importantly, on the basis that the Government will be open to persuasion by business, local government and their social partners strictly on the merits of each individual case, such that they will not be in the position of either abolishing all RDAs or none?
We on this side recognise, as I am sure other noble Lords will, that that there are relatively stronger and relatively weaker cases for retention. Will the Minister give us an assurance that each will be considered on its merits on a case-by-case basis, assuming, as I fervently hope to be the case, that the amendment moved by my noble friend is not lost?
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Beecham has tabled and to which I have put my name. I strongly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who showed why many of us have doubts that LEPs would be capable of carrying out the many tasks that regional development agencies have carried out until now. Indeed, if they were able to carry out those tasks then the two would effectively be duplicating each other and causing the picture to be much more confused than it has been.
With regard to the north-east, the Government have said that they have a localism agenda. The simple message therefore has to be: if local people want this, why can they not have it? My noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top described in an earlier debate how the original impetus for the north-east regional development agency had come from within the north-east itself. I pay tribute to a former Member of this House, Lord Burlison, who, along with industry in the region, brought trade unions and industry together in a cohesive way in order to create a development agency before one was officially sanctioned by the Government. That was an important experience which showed what the attitude was in the north-east.
During the course of these debates, various Members have said, “Well, the north-east isn’t so cohesive”. I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who is in his place, saying that Northumberland was very different from parts of Durham, and I think that the Minister concurred somewhat with that point of view. I was born and brought up in Northumberland; I live there now and have lived in different parts of that county. The history of Northumberland, particularly if you look at places like Blyth, Ashington, Broomhill, Widdrington and so on, is very much akin to areas of Durham. When you look at the north-east, you can see that there is industrial concentration around the rivers and where the population tends to concentrate, and then around the whole of that area in a continuous belt of spectacular countryside you have the Northumberland national park, the Durham dales, Teesdale and the North York moors. The region is very cohesive.
It is true, as others have pointed out, that the north-east did not vote for a regional assembly but, having campaigned in that election, I know that there was certainly no controversy over the regional development agency at that time. Generally there has been wide acceptance of the need for a regional development authority in the north-east. It helps manufacturing vocations in the north-east—its exporting vocation, which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, mentioned in an earlier debate—in such sectors as engineering, the offshore sector and energy, as well as the way in which universities in the north-east have collaborated with industry.
The region is very cohesive economically. My final word to the Government is therefore: be flexible, be generous, consult more widely and be prepared to change course.
Lord Grantchester
I shall speak to Amendment 17A in the absence of my noble friend Lord Liddle. In doing so I declare my interest in the region, having served on the sub-regional body Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance, one of five sub-regional bodies under the Northwest Regional Development Agency.
In the run-up to the most recent election, early versions of the Conservative-led Government’s regional policy seemed to suggest that both the north-western and north-eastern development boards would be retained, as there was general recognition of the benefits that each had brought to their regions. That recognition was reinforced by an independent evaluation undertaken by PwC, drawing attention to the strategic coherence brought and the GVA delivered.
It was therefore something of a disappointment when it was announced that all RDAs were to be disbanded. As a public-private partnership, the new Cheshire LEP is taking the coherency of the sub-region forward, but without any resources. It is undertaking some very worthwhile projects, such as with Liverpool University to explore the value of the equine sector in Cheshire West, and in rural housing, through a joint commission set up by rural regeneration and housing teams. That is all very worth while, but it is without the wider coherency of reciprocal support provided from the NWDA, following agreement on priorities across the whole region. The concern is that, without the wider regional strategy brought by the NWDA, policies will fracture into parochialism, with so-called local areas failing to see the bigger picture, to share best practice or to co-ordinate. I refer in this respect to the leadership shown on climate change policies and guidance that is so necessary if we are to meet our future obligations.
I will not repeat the debate in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has spoken tonight very powerfully. At the moment, there is confusion over the process of change. The decision to abolish the RDAs so quickly has created major challenges for existing destination organisations and, accordingly, rather than focusing on opportunities such as provided by the 2012 Olympics, they have been forced to reorganise. This has lost time and momentum, especially with there being no strategic transition plan in place to guide the move from RDAs to LEPs.
To continue with the 2012 theme, there is a great risk that this opportunity cannot be grasped. For the visitor economy, there is a need to provide the national organisation, visitEngland, with support to fill the current gap, while existing visitor businesses need to engage with new organisations that will emerge, albeit that they will be much reduced in terms of both human and financial resources. Another disappointing consequence of the plan to disband the NWDA concerns the future provision of the EU funding provided through the economic rural development funds. This highlights the vacuum in the present Government’s policy on regions. Instead of providing access to these much-needed rural development funds under Pillar 2 local arrangements at local level, the Conservative-led coalition seems to favour implementing these centrally, in direct contradiction to its localism agenda. The rural economy deserves better.
Finally, there seems to be no thought on what will happen on asset ownership, both physical and intellectual, and how the area can derive maximum benefit from their previous investments. There is still time to reconsider. I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I find it quite extraordinary that the Government have decided to abolish RDAs on a day when the growth forecast has been reduced yet again. It is a quite bizarre decision.
I speak from the particular context of the West Midlands, looking at the performance of Advantage West Midlands. The West Midlands is a great place to live, but recently our economy faces many formidable challenges. Advantage West Midlands has done a very good job in the past few years, drawing people together and identifying real projects to invest in. As a result, we can see the regeneration of Longbridge, after the collapse of the manufacturing industry there. We have seen the regeneration of Fort Dunlop, with 140,000 jobs safeguarded, 28,000 helped back into work and 160,000 people helped to get better skills. Over 100,000 businesses were helped to improve their performance. As Sir Roy McNulty, the chair of Advantage West Midlands said at its last AGM, it is clear that its abolition has been based on political reasons rather than on its actual track record.
The CBI said that,
“in the rush to abolish Regional Development Agencies … and elicit bids for Local Enterprise Partnerships … there is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater”.
Again, the CBI has singled out transport as a critical issue for improving economic growth. It concluded that LEPs need to find a way to replicate the ability of RDAs at their best to cut across local authority boundaries and to promote a regional level transport agenda. How are LEPs going to do it, given that they cover much smaller areas? For instance, in the West Midlands, is it really sensible to split Birmingham from the Black Country? It is a complete nonsense.
Let us talk about the resources needed for the development of major infrastructure. The number one priority for us is the extension of the runway at Birmingham International Airport. However, the Government’s last-minute decision to change the rules and go only for short-term, quick-win projects for the first £250 million that was available meant that bidding for Birmingham airport expansion was stopped in its tracks. No wonder the Birmingham Post said in a leader on 27 January that the launch of LEPs has been,
“an unmitigated and embarrassing disaster”.
Instead of a region working together, what will we see? We will see arguments and splits between LEPs that are side by side in the same region, when they should be working together.
The Government’s admission that their policy is a nonsense relates to BIS’s decision to recreate regional offices. What better indication could you have that the business department knows that the abolition of RDAs was a very silly decision which anyone concerned for economic development in this country could only oppose? The Government are making a big mistake in abolishing RDAs. Will the Minister respond to my noble friend Lady Quin, who asked why on earth those regions where there was a clear and strong consensus to retain RDAs, are not allowed to keep them going? Why should we be forced to downgrade, disrupt and undermine regional growth simply because there is some kind of doctrinaire political approach that says we cannot live with RDAs?
Lord Empey
My Lords, I had the opportunity to make some remarks on this issue at Second Reading. I do not believe that anybody in this House is not in favour of growth or strong regional policy; that is common ground. The point I tried to make at Second Reading was: is the present structure fit for current-day purpose?
I regret that I did not hear the beginning of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, but I heard several of them in what was a very passionate speech. In referring to one case, he commented that councils did not necessarily have drive. However, leadership in any organisation, whether it is an RDA, a council or anything else, will vary from body to body, just as leadership in a school will vary from body to body. I have to say that there are examples of local authorities doing very difficult things. In my own case, I was a member of a local authority that redeveloped the most polluted site in Ireland—a former gas works. It is now a thriving economic area. We developed the waterfront and brownfield sites. Where the right leadership is in place, you can do a lot of things. We were able to tap into ERDF and even ESF to train the local people who will, we hope, get some benefit from the redevelopment, instead of looking through the railings at the parked BMWs. We can do that if the leadership is in place.
I wanted to say one thing to the noble Lord. He said that it was more difficult to create a structure or organisation than to close one down. I have to take the very opposite view. I had the opportunity to create an organisation like an RDA. I had the opportunity to merge bodies together and the opportunity to close them. The easiest thing to do was to create them. It was more difficult to merge them, and the most difficult thing was to close them. That is why we have so many—not only RDAs but public bodies in general. Departments liked to put a body out there that could take the flak and the front fire to protect the department from taking the blame for things. The existence of a body, whatever it might be, and the ability to say, “These people have autonomy to deal with this”, protects the Civil Service from its responsibilities. It is good to be able to put these bodies out there as a sort of barrage to protect the centre from local criticism, because there is always someone else to blame. That is why there are so many of these bodies.
Many of them have done excellent work. As has already been said, some of these RDAs have been good and some have been not so good; that is human nature. It is the human condition. That relates to the leadership they give, their policies and the opportunities that have been taken. However, we have to be mature about the whole issue of public bodies. Everyone admits that we have too many of them. No matter which one you touch, it is inevitable that a group of people will support it.
In many cases, some of the reasons that noble Lords have put forward have been perfectly plausible. However, the real issue, as I pointed out at Second Reading, is the change in Europe, where the resources that used to be available to this country will no longer be available post-2013, because the money is flowing east, as we all know. The economic profile of our economy has changed. We brought to bear solutions through these large battleship bodies with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds. Those bodies were right at the time, just as the Agricultural Wages Board was right at the time. However, times have moved on. Europe’s policy has changed. We now have to manage within our own resources.
I am not as pessimistic about the role that local authorities can play and what happens regarding the local enterprise partnerships remains to be seen. However, as always, a lot of this will come down to leadership on the ground. It is the same for the military, a company, a school or a business—and it is the same for a local authority or an RDA. We must look at an alternative model, because circumstances have moved on, and in trying to deal with the plethora of public bodies, you could almost come to a complete standstill if you did not make some attempt to bring about change.
There is no doubt that the biggest challenge we face is on growing our economy. We all complain about the lack of warships and aircraft carriers. Where is the money coming from to pay for them, if it is not coming from economic growth and wealth creation? Those are our only sources, other than borrowing—and we know where that got us. There is little alternative but to try an alternative. I take the points made by noble Lords about assets—that is an important issue—but creating bodies is easiest; amalgamating them is the next most difficult; and closing them is the most difficult. That is my experience and this debate proves the point. Every body that you consider has a lobby in support of it. While I acknowledge the great work that a number of these organisations have done—it would be churlish not to say that—the fact is that the mechanisms we have to adopt to improve our economic growth have moved on and different structures and models must be adopted.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House in intervening in a debate in which I have not previously taken part. Just in case it is felt that the argument has been entirely one-sided, I remind your Lordships that in my part of the world on the Barrow-in-Furness peninsula, where I declare an interest in running a small business, the economy is driven by companies such as these, which employ some 100 or 200 people. I do not want to be unkind to the people in these agencies who have done their best, but in my part of the world it would be fair to say that there is no consensus that we want to keep them. Businesses of my size do not feel that the agencies are approachable or are the answer. We want government to get off our backs and leave us alone. I am reminded of my father, who told me: “My boy, if the Government offer you a grant, it is probably not worth taking”.
Lord Hoyle
That might be the view of the noble Lord, but I am afraid that he is not living in the real world. How can he be when he has made a statement like that? Let him look at what has been created by RDAs. I will not speak for very long, because my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made a very powerful case. However, I believe that we are talking to people who will not listen to the arguments that we are putting. I am pleased that the noble Lord intervened from that side, because he is the first to do so: it has been only us speaking.
The RDAs have done a wonderful job. I have a copy of a letter that was addressed to my noble friend Lady Royall. I was critical when the Minister was winding up last time and said that he was not answering the debate. He has now taken the trouble to try to answer the debate and I thank him for that. It is not always done. Having said that, I do not agree with most of the answers he gave; he will not be surprised about that.
I could go through every paragraph of the letter, but it is too late in the evening. I will refer to one paragraph that deals with the independent evaluation by PricewaterhouseCoopers that demonstrated that every pound spent by RDAs added approximately £4.50 to regional economies. In the case of the north-west, the figure was greater: £5.20. However, no answer is given in the paragraph. It simply states:
“We appreciate the work they have done”.
The issue is not whether we appreciate the work they have done, but who is going to pick up the mantle and do the work in future. There is no answer to the question of where we will get replacement agencies that will secure that kind of growth. As has been said often tonight, we are going back to localism instead of looking at regions as a whole.
The regions did benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he had an interest in Barrow-in-Furness. When the floods hit Cumbria, the RDA brought help to local businesses in need within four days. That was not matched by any other body, and it will not be matched by any new bureaucracy that is going to be established.
I will repeat what has been done for the north-west by the Northwest Regional Development Agency: 220,000 jobs have been preserved, 23,000 new businesses have been created and £3.2 billion of private investment has been brought in. These are huge sums. The agency has looked at the region as a whole. If we split it up, we will not get that sort of aid.
I will not go on. I thank the Minister for replying, but ask him to reply also to the debate tonight, because too much is at stake in the regions: too many jobs and too much inward investment. Why should the RDAs be destroyed because of a political decision that I believe is wrong? Not only do I believe that it is wrong, but many other Members of the House believe that, too. More importantly, people and businesses in the regions believe that it is wrong. If the Minister is saying that we can do the job with other organisations, can he tell me what funding will be given to the new bodies? As I understand it, there is no funding, and if there is no funding they will not be able to do the job. Will the Minister reassure me that adequate funds will be made available?
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I support the case made by my noble friends through their various amendments. In doing so, having spent many years in public life, I reflect that there are certain constant difficulties and challenges. In our previous debate on this issue, I remember the case being made for the establishment of the northern development agency, including the northern part of the north-west and the north-east of England. The one overarching pressure on the NDA was how to challenge what was clearly going to be a devolved nation in Scotland. That was a very powerful problem. Unless you live in a frontier-type economy, you do not really appreciate the rather different problems that might be experienced compared with the rest of the country.
I remember how the development agencies in Scotland in the early 1980s constantly tried to offer inducements to companies in the north of England to relocate in Scotland with grants, which the local authorities—because there was no development agency then—could match. That was one of the prime reasons for the almost universal support for the agency in the north of the country—a point made by my noble friends Lady Quin and Lord Beecham. That problem will still exist. It is eight miles from Carlisle to the border and it is easy to relocate if you get financial inducements. We have to face up to that challenge. Therefore, I park with the Minister the thought that that problem will not go away.
Perhaps I may raise two specific issues. My noble friend Lord Beecham pointed out how important tourism was becoming to the north-east of England. It is just as important in the north-west, especially in Cumbria. Work was initially carried out on how to create more jobs and attract more visitors to Cumbria, and I mention Cumbria and not just the Lake District. As an aside, perhaps I may say how pleased I was that the Government decided to shortlist the Lake District as a possible World Heritage Site—I declare an interest as chairman of the bid—and how important that will be in creating jobs and stimulating the economy. I remind the Minister that Cumbria has more than 40 million visitors a year and that 32,860 full-time jobs are dependent on tourism. It adds £2 billion to the economy.
In order to succeed, you need leadership, and sometimes that involves investment. Of course, since the North-West Development Agency has gone, the funds have dried up for Cumbria Tourism. It has already had to reduce its staff from 45 to 19, so there is a serious problem there. However, it is not only a problem of attracting tourism; it is also a question of trying to compete against the equally attractive tourist resorts just over the border in Scotland. That takes me back to the problem of living in a border economy—things are different compared with other parts of the country.
I conclude by raising the issue of the assets and contractual commitments of the development agency. In a letter to me dated 1 March, Robert Hough, the chair of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, said that he believes:
“Any ongoing contractual commitments beyond March 2012 are likely to be transferred to BIS, other Government Departments or possibly a national residual body”.
I raise a specific point with the Minister that disturbs me greatly. It is why, in a sense, I am opposed to this move that the Government are proposing this evening. One of the problems of the north-west of England is the amount of derelict land. I believe that it has more derelict land than any other region in the country—all the disused coal spoil heaps and the industrial bases. The Northwest Regional Development Agency’s economic appraisal came up with the conclusion—surprise, surprise—that the way forward was to green these areas, to enhance their environment, to make them more attractive to inward investment, and to improve the health and the lives of the people who live there.
As a result, the Northwest Regional Development Agency entered into partnerships with the Forestry Commission, the Wildlife Trusts and local authorities. As a result, there has been a huge greening in the north-west of England in the old industrial areas. I repeat what I said before, but it just gives me so much pleasure to say it. Over recent years we have planted over a million trees in Wigan, over a million trees in Moseley, over a million trees in Ellesmere Port, 2 million trees in Vale Royal, and 2 million trees in Warrington. This is a mammoth undertaking that has revolutionised the environment and will do so increasingly in that part of Lancashire. It will also make it more attractive potentially for inward investment.
This was done through partnership, commitment and investment by the Forestry Commission, and through long-term leases with various charities and local authorities. As a result, the Northwest Regional Development Agency has an ongoing commitment to the year 2029 of roughly £6.6 million. Who will pay that money? Who will accept the liability? How will the funds be paid to the main recipient, the Forestry Commission? I seek assurances from the Minister on that issue because it is very important as we go forward, and it exemplifies my point that this proposal has not been thought through, the ends have not been tied up, and, certainly, I cannot support the Government tonight.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to talk about the RDAs; I played some part in their creation a number of years ago. I must apologise to the Committee because I am not as briefed as perhaps I should have been. I was in the Council of Europe today and I realised that the debate was on this afternoon. We need to understand what was inherited when the Regional Development Agencies were created. People have so easily forgotten. We were talking about 3 million unemployed, about massive disinvestment in public services, and about a growing disparity and growing inequalities between the north and south in jobs, education and investment. If anything was to be done about this, we felt that we had to do more than simply leave it to the market. What was the solution? The noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, was the Chancellor in charge of a great deal of the economy at that time and the results that we were left with were quite disastrous, frankly. I will not repeat them, or go into detail, but it was totally unacceptable to us. We came to power doing something about employment.
The employment was not just in the north and south, although the disparities had grown. I recall, when I produced my alternative regional strategy, going to the northern region and saying that we were going to have a regional development agency for every part of the UK. It was suggested to me that as a northern politician I should just think of the north and not the south. It was a very complicated meeting, but I pointed out that with a million unemployed in the south, we could not be indifferent to that, whatever the growth rates and differentials between each of the regions. We needed to develop the expertise, the partnership and the public and private sector, and set a body up that could take a regional analysis to do something about it. This was welcomed by business. In fact, business today still has very warm words to say about the RDAs, particularly when compared with the organisations that the Government now propose to set up if they abolish the RDAs—and they are on the way to doing so.
It was important that business chaired every one of the RDAs. We thought that it was very important to have business chairmen who got the co-operation of the local authorities and the various bodies and developed, as their first priority, a regional strategy for the assets of a region to see how they could best develop them to the advantage of the region, and not to compete, as was often the case in regional policy before. Governments, including Labour Governments, went round offering bags of gold to industry to move the motor car industry from A to B. That was basically the strategy. In some cases, that brought jobs, but it did not deal with the most important thing: to develop the assets of the region and the economy.
If you look at the record, the judgment of the Audit Commission, parliamentary groups and businesses themselves looking impartially at each of the regions has been that the RDAs did a good job. They helped to reduce unemployment. A lot of the 2 million jobs that we produced at the time were public sector jobs, let us be honest. I do not think that a public sector job is wrong. When so many thousand jobs went in the north-east, it was stated that they were state jobs, as if something was wrong with someone who was employed as a public servant, whether they were in a hospital, a school, another public service or even just emptying bins, for God's sake. They were in a job and were an essential part of economic development. Yes, a lot of them were in public service, but that began to have its effect in the economy. It lifted demand. It had a consumer effect. It gave more confidence. The development agencies over that period were a success. You can always ask how much that cost. You might ask yourself how much it saved when mass unemployment gives you a heck of a cost, never mind what you might feel the excessive administrative cost is of what is called a quango. They were bodies that did their job. That was important.
What worries me now is what the strategy is. A noble Lord said that we should look at what happened in Scotland and Wales. I remember arguing about this in the other place. They said, “We are going to abolish the Scottish and Welsh development agencies”, and they did not. As soon as they came to power they realised their success and the demand from the local and regional area to keep their RDAs. Admittedly, the Government recognised that at the time and refused to abolish them. Why did they not abolish them? Because they were doing a good job. Why did we think the RDAs were needed in the English regions? Because they had done a good job in Scotland and in Wales. They had improved their economies while ours had gone down and down, and it seemed that a significant feature of that was the regional development agencies, so we wanted them in all our regions. Even if the growth in the south-east was always higher than in the north-east, there was still a need to develop the regional assets. Regional development bodies can do that, and they did.
The only time there was any move to make some change was after the Toxteth riots in 1981. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was sent up with a busload of bankers to look at what they could do in Liverpool. One result was that they developed these garden centres—I cannot remember their name.
Lord Prescott
Garden centres, garden festivals, you can pick the word you want. I think that the one in Liverpool collapsed after its show and still nothing has been built on that ground. We have to develop in a more effective way, although to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, I agreed with him that the development at Canary Wharf was significant. Transforming the docks into new industrial developments and commercial centres has been a success. That was intervention.
I recall, when we came to power in 1997, meeting Mr Walker—I am not sure whether he was a Lord or not—who was in charge of English Partnerships. He said, “We are not a body of intervention”. I said, “Well, we are on different tracks then”. He said, “I am telling you that we won’t do that”. I had to say to him, “Obviously you have not read the papers. We are now the Government. It is going to be a body of intervention”. English Partnerships did an excellent job, including in the coalfield communities that had been destroyed by the previous Government. It set up an active intervention partnership, public and private, in the coalfield communities. The Audit Commission reports show that it did an excellent job. More people are now employed in coalfield areas than when there were the previous jobs.
By the way, most coalfield areas are rural areas. Enterprise centres are now being talked about. That was all done before. I notice from the list here that very few of them are in rural areas; they are in the cities. Fine, but there is a lot of high unemployment in rural areas as well, and those enterprise zones are designed to help urban development. You do not get a balanced development. You might help the cities in a marginal way, but what you want from regional development agencies is balanced development. Only the RDAs can do that. They are also important for bringing in money from Europe. Before the RDAs in Britain, most of Europe did not bother. The recognition was of the county authorities. The county authorities were not big enough to deal with the actual decisions that had to be taken. You needed a body that was recognised at the regional level, because we were the only country in Europe that did not have a regional body. You needed to co-ordinate those resources, to bring the strengths together and to make it important.
Now it is basically proposed to abolish them. Frankly, I agree with our amendment. I am not against reform. RDAs came out of reform; we did not like what was there, we changed it, and that has been effective. Apparently, being successful is now a real problem; we abolish you. What worries me most of all is that they are being replaced with the old structures that we had before and that failed before. The Government seem to believe that it is just the market. I heard the Chancellor today talking about “growth, growth, growth”. The trouble is that he is not achieving it. We are creating the same kinds of problems that we had before. We do not maximise growth, but unemployment. That is what will come out of this.
A number of noble Lords have said in these debates that, looking at what will happen to some of these areas with RDAs, we are already beginning to witness confusion coming about due to the setting up of local enterprise partnerships. I have got them in my area. I notice the enterprise zones in these areas, and now there is talk about partnerships. Problems are already beginning to develop.
I finish on this point, because I have already seen it in Hull. Hull is an area of high unemployment. That reduced under Labour, but it is still an area of high unemployment. We now have a problem that was brought to my attention about a week ago, with a company in my former constituency that produces modular bathrooms. It has been highly successful. It is manufacturing. It employs hundreds of people. It wants to expand on an existing, empty, two-acre industrial estate where the road has been half done but not completed. The company said, “We could take on a hundred more people manufacturing in Hull, helping growth, if someone would let us expand and buy or lease that empty land and build the road to make the connection”. Well, that seems obvious. They gave me a ring, I spoke to them, and the local MP is of course involved in this. When I inquired of the regional development agency that owns the land, “Why aren’t you helping this company to expand?”, it said, “Sorry, all our assets are now being transferred to BIS”. Then they said that the local authorities cannot agree between themselves whether there should be one local body, which might be a trust, representing the north or one representing the south. Businessmen are disagreeing with what the council is coming up with. It causes delay. This company is being held up because of the problems in organised infrastructure that we are now inheriting.
I hope that the Minister will look at this. I am sure that he wants to see jobs. Certainly, the Chancellor says that he wants to see growth. Well, he could make a decision tomorrow that will bring that about, not all that waffle we have heard in the Commons today. I am sure that there are many other examples from around the country, but I would not have to come to Parliament for that. RDAs did that all the time. They made those decisions, created the jobs and co-ordinated the public and private investment. That is what the RDAs did. We had 10 years of them showing their success. Now the Government are coming along with these silly ideas to abolish them. The result will not be that waffle, it will be more on the dole and less growth. We will be back in the circumstances that we inherited many years ago, which led us to set up the RDAs.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, there might be a change of tone with my contribution to this debate. This is a serious matter and I approach the topic with humility, but with a determination to demonstrate the reasons for the Government’s decision. It is a political decision; we make no apology for that. It is a political response to the economic situation in which this country finds itself. I hope that noble Lords will give me the opportunity to explain the origins of that decision and what the Government intend to do to maintain a programme of growth announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in circumstances in which the vast sums of money that were available to sustain the regional development agency structure are no longer available.
I am not at all surprised at the passion that has been vented this evening. I am a provincial myself. I come from the east Midlands and I am very proud of my background. I have to say that I rather share the experience of my noble friend Lord Cavendish when it comes to the impact of the regional development agency for the east Midlands in my part of the world, but perhaps that is because I live in a relatively remote rural area and our problems are not at the top of the agenda. We have learnt to rely on our own resources probably a good deal more than other communities can afford to do.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the Minister refers to the problem of borders but how are the Government dealing with the problem of borders by splitting Birmingham from the Black Country? It is sheer madness in terms of getting support across a region for the major infrastructure projects that are so desperately needed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The difficulty with RDAs was that they had clearly defined, strict borders. The great thing about LEPs is that they are partnerships and they are flexible enough to be able to work together when they need to. That is our answer to the question of the north-east. There are opportunities for LEPs to work together across boundaries. That is their huge advantage over the strictly geographically delineated boundaries that existed between RDAs and the difficulty of getting joint projects going with them.
The south Midlands was an area of the country where the south-east, the east Midlands and the eastern region met in an area around Milton Keynes, Northampton and Bedford. That particular group now has an LEP in common. It is a true economic region in the sense that there is a community of interest across what previously was RDA territory. We have deliberately placed the onus on the partners to show that they have identified a real economic area to cover. We have not sought to second-guess them. We have asked the partners to think again about a particular proposal only where there is a substantial difference of view in the area itself and in the places around it.
The RDAs were expensive bodies to run and often duplicated activities which could be better undertaken at local or national level. In much of the country people felt little or no attachment to regions. In our earlier debate much was made of the local support for the north-eastern and north-western regions. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, talked of the way in which Cumbria identifies more strongly with Newcastle than with Manchester. Only yesterday the House approved the creation of the Greater Manchester combined authority. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I took that through as a statutory instrument in the Moses Room last week. It reflected the desire of that area for a stronger local focus. I remain doubtful that the enthusiasm for a unified north-east region runs quite as high by the Tees as it does by the Tyne.
In our new circumstances we need lighter, more nimble bodies, capable of forging new linkages and alliances, rather than being caught up in regional straitjackets. Where partnerships wish to work together, we welcome it. If they had chosen areas which had matched one or more of the former regions and been able to demonstrate economic benefits and support from businesses and local authorities, we would have welcomed that too, but the fact is that they did not. In our previous discussion I pointed to the enthusiastic response we have received throughout the country to our call to develop local enterprise partnerships. On 8 March 2011 the 31 partnerships sent 90 representatives to a summit in Coventry. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Business and Communities were all present. They confirmed their support for the formation of an association to help partnerships share knowledge and ideas. This idea came from the partnerships. The Deputy Prime Minister also announced that the second of the regional growth funds would open on 12 April, and those successful in the first round will be announced shortly. Some £1.4 billion will be in that fund over the next three years.
I am grateful that my previous letter has been well received. I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been asked tonight, although it may not be possible to do so in the case of some of those which were highly specific. I shall do my best to give answers that cover some of the most central points raised. The first question was what the Chancellor announced today. He announced that the Government would introduce 21 new enterprise zones. I do not belittle them—the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, did rather. They will all be important; they will all be established in LEPs; and they will be focuses for growth. The Budget names the LEPs that will receive the first enterprise zones, plus London. The next 10 will be established through a competitive process. Benefits include the business rate discount over a five-year period.
It was asked whether LEPs have the capacity to take on the wide range of projects envisaged—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made this point particularly strongly. The capacity of LEPs will vary initially. Some are based on well established structures—Manchester being an example of an existing structure, let alone the fact that it now has a combined authority—but others are entirely new. The LEPs are establishing a network to share experience and best practice to bring new partnerships up to speed quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in what I acknowledge was a very impassioned speech, asked whether there would be a fire sale of assets. The brief answer to that is no. It will be a managed process. Assets of which it makes commercial sense to dispose in the short term are being identified and a list will be made available to local authorities shortly. However, where it is more sensible to dispose of assets over the medium or long term, it will be done. It is important to emphasise that the RDAs are liaising with the local authorities within their patch and with the LEPs to make sure that this process is managed efficiently.
It was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the LEPs will not have a role in inward investment and European funding. That is not the case, because UKTI and the DCLG have made it clear that they will work closely with LEPs and other local partners on inward investment and on the European regional development fund. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked what discussions were going on about the position of the North East Economic Partnership and its assets. Discussions are ongoing; I cannot comment on the path that they are taking. However, we have confirmed that that we are not able to pass on assets as gifts or for deferred consideration to that partnership.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, also raised questions about the north-east.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The letter to my noble friend refers to a nominated single national contractor. Could the Minister give us a little more information as to what is intended? What sort of body would it be? Would it be a private sector body or an existing company? Is it to be established by some consortium? What actually is it as an entity?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
When we are in a position to make an announcement about that, we shall. I am not in a position to do so at this point in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, raised a number of interesting questions based not only on the experience of his work with the Forestry Commission but on his location in Cumbria. On the issue of competition with Scotland for inward investment, UKTI co-ordinates the work on this, and one of its main aims is to avoid wasteful competition between different parts of the UK for inward investment. The noble Lord, quite appropriately, asked specifically about the trees and their liabilities. At present, the Northwest Regional Development Agency is discussing plans for its assets and liabilities with the Government. I cannot give a response on the future of these assets until these discussions are completed.
A number of noble Lords asked about the process of consultation. One of the lessons noble Lords will take from this Bill is that the Government are serious about consultation. The procedures laid down in the Bill require Ministers to come to Parliament with full details of the impacts of any policy change that they seek to bring in through statutory instruments. There will be full consultation. I shall be happy to keep the House informed on the nature of this consultation over the next few months while this process of change is going on.
From a standing start in September 2010, partnerships now cover 80 per cent of active businesses in the UK and 87 per cent of the population. We are looking forward to reaching 100 per cent. We believe that we have unleashed a wave of enthusiasm for economic development at local level. In many places there is no appetite to go back to the old arrangements. It was clear from our earlier debate that many noble Lords retain their attachment to RDAs as they were. However, we do not believe that a return to the circumstances of a few years ago is either appropriate or possible. We are now in a new situation and we need to ensure that economic activity is taken forward across the right geography by fully committed partnerships. RDAs do not fit in with that new approach and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Will the Government consult on the basis of all or nothing or will they approach each case in each region on its merits and listen with an open mind to the arguments of business as well as local government and its social partners? Will they take a decision on a case by case basis or, as I say, will it be all or nothing.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is a listening Government and they are prepared to listen. They will listen to advice from everyone who feels that they have something to offer on this subject, take note of that advice and make decisions where appropriate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am very disappointed by the Minister’s response. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate—my noble friends Lady Royall, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Beecham, Lady Quin, Lord Grantchester, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Hoyle, Lord Clark of Windermere and Lord Prescott, the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish of Furness and Lord Empey, and, of course, the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Prescott, as did many other noble Lords, stated clearly why the Labour Government established the RDAs in 1999, what they began to tackle, the progress they made and why they should be kept. The Government have not made the case for the RDAs to be abolished. All have outlined why they worked sub-regionally.
I am happy to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Royall. In doing so, I shall leave it to my noble friend to decide whether she wishes to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his offer to keep us informed of the consultations as they go on. The Minister was right to say that it is a political decision that has been taken by this Government. We believe that this is fundamentally the wrong decision. We believe that it is wrong for the economic growth of our regions and it is wrong for the economic well-being of our country. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has come in behind an amendment that I put down. I hope that this is one of many occasions when the noble Lord will come in behind amendments that I put down in this House.
I am very interested to hear from the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones—why the Government have decided to join the Opposition on this amendment. Both at Second Reading and in Committee, I raised concerns that there are real risks of allowing criminality to return to an industry that has cleaned up its act dramatically in recent years. I have always felt it to be reassuring when you go into a venue and meet security personnel with credentials on display that show that the individual has reached a certain standard, had a Criminal Records Bureau check and is deemed to be a fit and proper person to undertake this kind of work.
Maybe the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to delete this body from the Bill, but will work behind the scenes and bring something back in the future. If that happens, I am sure that this House will give it the line-by-line scrutiny it deserves. It is important to ensure that we take the industry with us; the industry does not want to see the criminals return. Security checks on individuals who want to join the industry remain. A common approach to a problem that has largely been solved, but may need to be reviewed and updated as things change, could command support across the House if handled properly and built on what has been achieved in recent years.
I will leave it there; I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary. I am eager to hear from the Minister.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the amendment removes the Security Industry Authority from the list of public bodies that the Minister can abolish by secondary legislation. Some noble Lords may wonder why the Government are supporting an amendment which is the same as one which the Opposition put forward a few weeks ago and which we then resisted. If I go into the Government’s reasoning behind our approach to the Bill, it will then become clear why we are now supporting this amendment.
First, our willingness to accept the amendment does not represent a change of policy; it remains the Government’s intention to abolish the SIA in its present form. We have, however, decided that this will be best achieved through a different piece of primary legislation. As noble Lords know, it was announced on 14 October as part of the public bodies review that the SIA would no longer be a non-departmental public body and that we would take forward a phased transition to a new regulatory regime. I went through the reasons for that during the Committee debate on 28 February, and I do not intend to detain the House at this hour by going over that ground again. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.
Home Office Ministers asked the SIA last October to consult key stakeholders, including the industry, and to produce a detailed plan of how the phased transition to the new regulatory regime could be achieved. As the House will know, the chair of the SIA, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and its chief executive, Bill Butler, presented their plan to the department on 16 February and there has been a subsequent meeting with the Home Secretary on 14 March, so there has been close dialogue between the SIA and the department.
The key points that emerge from the proposals are that: regulation will shift from licensing individuals to registering businesses, which will have to meet a comprehensive set of conditions set by the new regulator; the regulation of individuals will become the responsibility of registered businesses, which is an important point; the new regulator will have the power to impose sanctions, including removing the right to trade in the private security industry on the part of businesses that fail to comply with the conditions that it sets for registration; and the Government’s aim is for the new regulatory regime to be in place by the end of 2013, using a phased approach to ensure a smooth transition.
We have decided to support the amendment to remove the SIA from the Bill because Clause 1 includes only powers to abolish bodies and transfer functions via secondary legislation. It does not include powers to set up new regulatory bodies, and it has become clear that primary legislation will be required to establish a successor self-regulatory body that will have the power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards. If I understood the noble Lord’s point, he attaches importance to the idea that the regulatory body should have teeth. The Government agree—in other words, it must have powers that will enable it to enforce sanctions against companies that breach standards.
We have therefore taken the opportunity to review, and decided that references to the SIA should be removed from the Bill. The same primary legislative vehicle that will establish the successor regulatory body will also be used to abolish the SIA, so we will put it all in another Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I cannot give further detail on that legislation today, except to say that we will bring it forward when parliamentary time allows.
A final point: the Home Secretary has also written to Ministers in the Scottish Government and in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to advise them of this amendment. Regulation of the private security industry in their nations is a policy decision for the devolved Administrations to make. We are working with them to ensure that transitional and subsequent arrangements meet the needs of all UK Administrations.
Accepting the amendment does not constitute a change in policy; it is a change to the vehicle that the Government will use to deliver that policy. There is wide agreement between the Government and what I understand to be the points made on the opposition Benches regarding the substance. It is still the Government’s intention to abolish the existing body and replace it with another body for the private security industry that is self-regulatory. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I apologise that I did not stand up before. As the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is on the amendment, I wanted to see what the noble Baroness was going to say in response before I could intervene. I have a couple of questions further to her speech.
The Minister suggested that we are thinking very much along the same lines; I think that that was what she said towards the end of her speech. Let me be clear that we do not agree with the Government about the future of the SIA because we believe that it is essentially doing a good job as it is. As we understand it, the industry itself is content with the present situation and willing to pay for the present system.
I return to two issues that were raised in the debate that we had in Committee. One was the attitude of the police. As all noble Lords will know, when we brought forward the primary legislation, one of the main bodies in favour of primary legislation being introduced were the police themselves, who felt that the security industry when unregulated was rather a dangerous industry, not just for the people working in the industry themselves but also for the wider society. It was as a means of protecting wider society that the legislation was introduced.
I will be grateful if the noble Baroness can tell us whether or not a consultation with the police and other concerned bodies will take place before a Bill is introduced. I will also be grateful if she can tell the House when a Bill is likely to be introduced. One of the issues that concerns these Benches is the fact that, in future, it is hoped by the Government that the regulation of individuals working within the security industry should become the responsibility of the security businesses themselves. That is precisely why primary legislation was introduced in the first place. The industry was not properly investigating or in charge of the individuals who were working in the industry and this led to endangering some of the people who depended on the security industry—for example, the young in nightclubs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised a question about prisoners in the last debate on the subject. At the moment where prisoners are moved from prison to prison, the wherewithal to do it is provided by the security industry. That is an extremely important part of the industry that needs to be properly regulated. Will the Government consult with the Ministry of Justice and everybody else who has anything to do with the movement of prisoners and the wider care of prisoners? As I understand it, people who work within the security industry are sometimes employed within private prisons. It does not seem a sensible move or good idea to reintroduce some form of self-regulation rather than to have proper regulation for an industry that is extremely important for the well-being of our society.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I am slightly puzzled that the noble Baroness says that the opposition Benches do not agree with the approach that I have just outlined. Before the Government came to office, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, herself was moving towards a more self-regulatory regime. She has seen the Home Secretary and other Ministers and is working with the Government on a transitional regime to a new body. I find it difficult to see why there should be such a problem for the opposition Benches.
On the question of the attitude of the police, we are consulting ACPO, which supports the approach. The police attach importance to effective regulation. That is precisely why I made my third point, in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in the previous debate. This body will have power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards. There will be set standards in a number of areas. Certainly, the whole question of custody will be one of those areas of set standards. I have to say that the differences are more synthetic than real. I hope that in due course, when we introduce and come to debate the legislation—I am not, unfortunately, able to give the noble Baroness a date for that because it depends on the crush of parliamentary business—there will be cross-party agreement.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment. Indeed, it was my amendment in Committee to which the noble Baroness responded. The Government, understandably, are a little diffident towards the Opposition tonight. The fact is that there has been, if not quite a U-turn, definitely a bit of a C-turn on this—quite rightly, too. Under the Bill as printed, the Government were going to abolish this body. They were not going to substitute statutorily backed self-regulation. What existed in the SIA was going disappear. The regulation of the industry and the personnel within it, and the standards and the great improvement in those standards that we have seen since the SIA was set up, could have been seriously endangered.
Just before the previous vote, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, met a certain degree of scepticism from these Benches when he said that the Government were a listening Government. At least on this amendment the Government have listened to some degree.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, on Report there is time for a noble Lord to ask just one question after the Minister has spoken.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, the Minister was not replying to the debate. The amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. I put my name to it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, so I think I am in order.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
I remind the noble Lord that the Companion says:
“Only the mover of an amendment … speaks after the minister … except for short questions … or where the minister speaks early to assist the House”.
The noble Lord should have spoken before the Minister. He is out of order, I am afraid.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment. As I have said on several occasions, whatever happens we need to ensure that criminality does not return to the industry and that the public are able to remain confident that the people employed in the industry are fit and proper. The overwhelming majority of the industry acts responsibly and supports retention of the SIA. If the Government bring forward a Bill for consideration, it will be important to give it detailed line-by-line scrutiny. In particular, I concur with the comments of my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Whitty.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 20 would remove the Valuation Tribunal Service from the Schedule. I am not quite clear about what the Government propose here. I could be persuaded to withdraw my amendment and not divide the House, but I need quite a detailed response from the Minister on what he is proposing. I look forward to his response and hope I will not have to divide the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment and for allowing us to debate for a few minutes the Valuation Tribunal Service. It is one of a number of bodies which are either listed or not listed in the Bill and whose work is not particularly well known by the general public. However, these are bodies that have played an important role in terms of the good order of society. As we have debated the 150 or so bodies under consideration, there has been a tendency and temptation—given that we have all agreed that it is right that these bodies should be reviewed on a regular basis—to underestimate the contribution of the people who have worked for them or sat on their boards. It is right for me to invite the Minister—who has, if I may say so, expertly steered the Bill through your Lordships’ House—to reflect on the importance of the tone with which we debate these organisations.
I say that because, in relation more generally to debates in your Lordships’ House, in the other place and among the public on public services, there has been an unfortunate tendency to speak in a pejorative way about back-office functions. That is a matter for regret. It is not sensible to suggest, for instance, that only a policeman is doing a good thing while someone who works for the police force in a back office is not. That is not a sensible way forward. Back-office staff are being made redundant from police services, while bureaucratic tasks have to be undertaken by front-line police officers. That demonstrates some of the perverse incentives of taking a black-and-white approach.
I mention that because, as we close our first day on Report, we have an opportunity to reflect on the fact that many of these organisations will go out of business. The functions of some will be transferred to another body while the functions of others will come to a close. It is important to send a message out to the people who have worked in these bodies that we do not underestimate the contribution that they have made. The regular review that is taking place should be sensible, but in no way should it be taken as a criticism of the work that is done by thousands of people up and down the country.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I happily associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because we all share his sentiment. The more you become involved in this process, the more you realise that you are dealing with bodies that in many cases are performing important tasks and are staffed by people with a due sense of purpose and public service.
What is interesting about the amendment—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for giving us a chance to talk about it—is that in many ways it brings continuity between the previous Government’s proposals in the area of tribunals and our own. As will be clear from my explanation of why the Valuation Tribunal Service is in Schedule 1, noble Lords will recognise that the foundations for this decision were laid by the legislation of the previous Government.
The Valuation Tribunal Service is a non-departmental public body that provides administrative support and all the services required by the Valuation Tribunal for England, which hears appeals on council tax and business rates—in other words, national non-domestic rates.
Taken together, the Valuation Tribunal for England and the Valuation Tribunal Service—I will use the acronyms from now on—provide an independent appeals service for business rate or council tax payers who wish to challenge either the basis on which the banding or valuation of their property has been calculated, or their liability to pay business rates or council tax. In the Government's recent announcement about the future of arm’s-length bodies, both the VTS and the VTE were identified as bodies that could be abolished. However, I stress that the Government recognise that the jurisdiction that the VTE exercises, and the functions undertaken by the VTS, are still necessary—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is correct—and plan to transfer them so that they become part of the unified structure for tribunals, thus ensuring that the independence of the appeals process for business rates and council tax will be maintained. The achievement of these transfers would be a further step in the achievement of the long-standing policy introduced by the previous Government, following the 2000 Leggatt report, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service, which this Government are continuing. The aim is to bring central government-sponsored tribunals in England and Wales under a single umbrella organisation.
The Government's proposal is that the jurisdiction of the VTE and the functions of the VTS should transfer respectively to the First-tier Tribunal and Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. It is important that noble Lords should note that the planned transfers are fully supported by both the chairman of the VTS, Anne Galbraith, and the president of the VTE, Professor Graham Zellick. The jurisdiction of the Valuation Tribunal for England will be transferred to the soon-to-be-created Land, Property and Housing Chamber—the Land Chamber—of the First-tier Tribunal, which was formally established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Powers in the 2007 Act would allow the formal transfer of the VTE's jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal, and the subsequent abolition of the VTE as a separately constituted tribunal. Since the 2007 Act powers are already available to achieve this, the Government do not need—and nor do they intend to seek—its abolition through the powers in the Bill. I trust that noble Lords will be comforted to learn that the jurisdictional independence currently enjoyed by the VTE will continue, following the transfer of that jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal.
Noble Lords will also wish to be made aware that the transfer will bring added opportunities. Members who would formerly have been in separate tribunals will be able, following the transfer, to sit on tribunals in all jurisdictions exercised within the First-tier Tribunal Land Chamber. Such arrangements are already in place elsewhere and have brought significant operational and jurisdictional advantages.
I turn to the Valuation Tribunal Service that is the subject of the amendment. If the jurisdiction of the VTE is transferred and the VTE is abolished, the VTS will effectively cease to have any purpose and powers. Therefore, the Government's intention is that, in tandem with the transfer of the VTE, the parallel administrative functions provided by the Valuation Tribunal Service should also transfer at the same time to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice that is shortly to be established following a merger between Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Tribunals Service.
The functions of the VTS, which are essentially to provide all administrative support for the operation of the VTE, including staff, accommodation and IT, would be absorbed into the tribunal service to sit alongside the administrative support for all jurisdictions within the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. Once these functions had been transferred, there would be no further need for the VTS to remain in existence as a separate body and it could then be formally abolished. However, as the VTS was established under statute—in the Local Government Act, to be precise—new powers would be required to achieve both the transfer of the VTS’s functions and its subsequent abolition. The power set out in Clause 1 would allow an order to be laid to achieve this transfer, and that is why the VTS is included in Schedule 1.
Planning for the transfer of both jurisdiction and administrative functions is in its very early stages but, following the transfer, we confidently expect the realisation of economies of scale, operating efficiencies and added service improvements, which the unified tribunals system was established to provide. The noble Lord will, I hope, recognise and be reassured that the Government’s proposals will maintain and sustain the independence of the appeals process for council tax and business rates, and that they are a continuation of the policy pursued by the previous Government. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and I also thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his comments. I should have mentioned that earlier in my local government career, in the 1980s, I was the deputy chair of the London South East Valuation Tribunal. I am persuaded by the Minister’s reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.