House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
1. What plans he has for the use of restorative justice to reduce the level of offending; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
We are committed to increasing the use of restorative justice throughout the criminal justice system. Restorative justice should play a part in activities ranging from informal disposals administered by front-line police officers to enabling serious offenders to face up to the consequences of their actions. There is growing evidence of its potential to cut reoffending and crime, and to enhance the role of victims in the delivery of justice.
Nicky Morgan
Charnwood council’s reducing reoffending scrutiny panel has been considering how to promote restorative justice locally. One of the problems that it has identified is that offenders are often released on Fridays or at weekends with no practical support. Before it can get around to worrying about restorative justice, we need to know what the Ministry can do to ensure that offenders are given the practical support that they need when they join the community.
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has raised a valid operational concern about Friday releases. However, holding prisoners whose statutory release date falls at a weekend until the following week is unlawful, and we do not think it right for prisoners to be let out early: they should serve the custodial period required by law. Our duty is to manage the operational issue of Friday releases. That includes ensuring that all prisoners are properly prepared for release, and implementing restorative justice as part of that preparation where appropriate.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
My constituent Gary Thrall was left for dead after a vicious knife attack last year. His first contact from Victim Support came five weeks later, when it was suggested that he might like to meet some knife attackers. Does the Minister agree that that is a gross misuse of restorative justice, and what can he do to ensure that the same thing does not happen to other people?
Mr Blunt
I read about that case in the papers. It is plainly important for restorative justice to carry the confidence of victims. They should not be placed in a position in which they are required to take part in restorative justice disposals; restorative justice should be a right for them to exercise when they see fit, and when it is clearly in their interests to do so.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that many victims greatly value the restorative justice process, because it brings the person who has caused them harm face to face with the harm that he has caused? Does the Minister recognise the need for it to be mainstreamed into the system rather more than it is at present? There are many areas in which it is currently not available to benches and courts.
Mr Blunt
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important to bear in mind that restorative justice is a right for victims. I believe that if, in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), a victim wished to exercise the right to engage in restorative justice and to demand an account from an offender who was pleading guilty or had been found guilty, he or she should have the opportunity to do so. The victim impact statement, as part of the restorative justice process for the benefit of the victim, must become a much clearer element of our justice system.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that restorative justice can be a positive intervention, and I was pleased to be able to attend a restorative justice session in Wormwood Scrubs organised by volunteers from the Prison Fellowship on 28 March. Unfortunately, however, it was the last such session to take place in a prison in the London region. Can the Minister explain why that is, given that it is agreed that restorative justice can be an effective intervention? Is this yet another example of the gap between rhetoric and reality?
Mr Blunt
No, it is not. The hon. lady is referring to a decision by the management of London prisons, which are principally local prisons, to focus on short-term offenders who are incarcerated in London as well as in local prisons supporting the courts. We are going to change the system so that restorative justice is embedded in the criminal justice process from beginning to end. The hon. Lady supported her party for a very long time in trying to get that done. I assure her that we shall absolutely deliver it.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
2. If he will estimate the number of existing injunctions granted on the grounds of invasion of privacy.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The Ministry of Justice currently holds some limited data on the numbers of injunctions applied for in the county courts, but they do not allow identification of anonymity injunctions. The Department’s chief statistician is currently considering how robust data on the number of anonymity injunctions issued by the courts might be collated in the future.
Mr Whittingdale
Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned about the possibility that the large number of injunctions that appear to be being granted on a routine basis suggests that the courts are paying insufficient regard to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which was intended to protect press freedom? Given that, and given the huge speculation on the internet about the identities of those who have obtained injunctions, does he feel that the time is approaching when Parliament may need to revisit the issue?
Mr Clarke
I do not think any of us know whether the number is increasing. As far as I am aware, there have been two super-injunctions since the John Terry case, but the word “super-injunction” gets used very widely. I realise there is increasing concern, however. I personally have strong views on the secrecy of justice. We have a tradition of open justice in this country. Plainly, I believe in the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in this country, even when it is sometimes exercised provocatively, as it is supposed to be in a free country, but there are also areas where an individual is entitled to have their privacy protected. The time is certainly coming when the Government are going to have to look at this matter, although we will probably wait until we have had the report of the Master of the Rolls, who is looking rather more closely at the procedural aspects.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor is right to remind us that it is important that we get the balance right between freedom of speech and an individual’s right to privacy, but he will be aware of the public disquiet about the use of the anonymity injunction or super-injunction, both in terms of its abuse—or alleged abuse—and its circumvention, for example by the use of Twitter. As he has said, the current situation is not satisfactory, but the Master of the Rolls is simply looking at the process, rather than the substance. What does the Lord Chancellor intend to do about that, so as to provide leadership on this issue?
Mr Clarke
First, I agree that the Master of the Rolls is looking at process, and I am sure what he says will be very valuable. As I have said, we will wait until he reports back before starting to take a proper look at the issue, but I think the Government will now have to study it and decide whether there is a case for intervening. There will never be unanimity on all these judgments, precisely because it is so difficult to balance the competing parts of the convention on human rights and the competing interests involved. There have been cases where we have certainly needed to know—such as where people are disposing of waste material by dumping it off the coast of Africa. That is easy in one direction, but in the other, every time I watch a football team I do not think I necessarily need to know about the sex life of each of the players.
Sadiq Khan
As is often the case, I find myself agreeing to a large extent with what the Lord Chancellor says, but let me say this. Super-injunctions are not granted by European judges using European law; they are granted by British judges using British law, and Parliament has supremacy over that law and those judges. If clarity and guidance is required and suitable, and bearing in mind the fact that we have the draft Defamation Bill and the forthcoming justice Bill, why does he not just say that he will use those vehicles to provide clarity and guidance?
Mr Clarke
We will consider these matters, and it is probably right that Parliament passing a privacy Act might well be the best way of resolving the issue, but we need to get somewhat nearer a consensus and to know exactly how we are trying to strike the balance before something is submitted for the judgment of Parliament. We may well not have to wait until the end of a long, controversial process such as that, and instead find some other way of tackling the issue, but we are considering it and we will come back with proposals in due course. If there were debate on a privacy Bill, there would be an interesting range of opinions even in Parliament, but I have not met many people yet who seem to have the perfect answer as to how to get the balance right.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Some of these injunctions serve to prevent information from being passed to the police or other regulators. Does the Secretary of State believe the law should be changed so that regulators can always have information passed to them?
Mr Clarke
That is one of the arguments which the judge who decides whether to grant the injunction will no doubt have in mind. Whether it is reasonable and in the public interest for the injunction to be granted is what the judge is meant to try to establish. The question for us is how we can make that clearer and more defensible, and how we can know more about what is happening so that we are all satisfied that injunctions are granted only in cases where the right to privacy of the individual is, indeed, being interfered with unjustly, but I know of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this topic, and we will bear his views in mind—
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
3. What reforms he is pursuing of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I will try not to talk this one out, Mr Speaker—although I will be tempted to do so.
Reform of the Court will be a key aim of the forthcoming UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe. We will be pressing in particular to reinforce the idea that the Court’s role is a subsidiary one, which means that states, not the Court, have primary responsibility for protecting convention rights.
Mr Bain
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In supporting reforms that cut the backlog of cases and reduce the delays that many people experience in the Strasbourg Court, does he agree with Amnesty International and 270 other non-governmental organisations which have founded a petition to campaign against the introduction of fees in the European Court of Human Rights, as they believe those could, in some cases, represent an insurmountable barrier to justice?
Mr Clarke
I certainly think that one of the things that needs to be tackled and can be tackled without too much difficulty is the thousands upon thousands of cases awaiting a hearing at the Court, many of which are completely outside the sphere of the convention and could be disposed of reasonably straightforwardly. The question of fees will have to be decided in due course by the Ministers of 47 member states of the Council of Europe, but there is not much evidence at the moment that people are feeling excluded from the jurisdiction by the threat of any imminent costs.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
There would be very little problem with the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court if we repealed the Human Rights Act 1998, withdrew from the convention and replaced it with a British Bill of Rights. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is about time that that happened?
Mr Clarke
If we repealed the Human Rights Act, which is one of the matters being looked at, we would just go back to having the convention applied directly by Strasbourg. The issue attracts a wide range of views, which is why we have set up a commission to consider them—[Interruption.] We have indeed set up the commission. It is composed of serious people who have expressed a very wide range of views in the past on the subject. They will strive to reach a consensus and it will be useful to get a properly informed and expert assessment of what the various options might result in. I am sure that the package of measures recommended by my hon. and learned Friend is one of the matters they will be considering in the course of their discussions.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
4. When he plans to bring forward proposals on the future of sentencing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
In December 2010, the Government set out proposals for more effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders in the “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper. We are finalising our response to the views expressed during the consultation and will publish it shortly. That will be followed by the publication of the legislation required to implement our proposals.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful for that answer. Is it the Government’s view that someone who breaks into a person’s house and threatens violence should automatically receive a prison sentence, irrespective of whether it is a first offence?
Mr Blunt
It is the Government’s view that justice should be done, and that is best done by judges taking into consideration the circumstances of every individual case. There will be circumstances in which Parliament has made clear its views in legislation. As a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, the hon. Gentleman will well understand that. He will also well understand the potential for miscarriages of justice if this place chooses so to tie the hands of judges that they are not able to exercise justice in the individual cases that come before them.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
There are a lot of noises off about this Government’s sentencing policy, but is not the reality that the simple aim of that policy is to reduce reoffending and to protect the public, and that nothing more need be said?
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
At present, a defendant entering an early guilty plea will earn up to a third off the sentence that would otherwise apply. The Government are proposing to replace that with a discount of a half, a move which is opposed by the judiciary and many others. How on earth will giving a half off a sentence help to protect the public?
Mr Blunt
I would have thought that a moment’s reflection would make that clear. Let us suppose that someone who is accused of rape co-operates with the authorities at the first opportunity, rather than puts their victim through the entire process of having to be prepared to give evidence and then having to give evidence. That is one example where there is a definitive benefit to the victim from encouraging the earliest possible guilty plea.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that short-term prison sentences for women are quite ineffective and that robust community options would be much better?
Mr Blunt
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary made clear last year, there are of course problems with short prison sentences for both male and female offenders. We will not take away from the judiciary and magistracy the ability to use short sentences when required, but we need to ensure that community sentences that are properly robust and properly punitive can carry public confidence as an appropriate option, particularly for women offenders who frequently have wider responsibilities in the community that would be lost if they were incarcerated.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
5. How many foreign national prisoners he expects to return to their country of origin to serve their sentences in 2011-12.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
17. How many foreign national prisoners he expects to return to their country of origin to serve their sentences in 2011-12.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
In 2010, 5,235 foreign national prisoners were removed or deported from the UK. The number of foreign national prisoners has reduced by 622 since 31 March 2010 to the present figure of 10,745. The number of foreign prisoners transferred through prisoner transfer arrangements remains regrettably low due to the voluntary nature of most of our existing arrangements. We expect about 60 prisoners to be transferred in 2011-12 to serve their sentence and for the number of transfers to rise progressively as the European Union prisoner transfer agreement enters into force.
Nick Smith
The Prime Minister vowed to repatriate thousands of foreign prisoners. How many foreign national prisoners have been repatriated in the past six months and how many does the Minister expect to repatriate in the coming 12 months?
Mr Hanson
On 2 June, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), the Prime Minister said:
“I have asked the Home Secretary to work with the Foreign Secretary to draw up agreements with as many countries as possible”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 434.]
Will the Minister update us on which new countries he has drawn up agreements with in the 11 months succeeding that date, what agreements have been finalised and, while he is at it, whether three and a half years after I began negotiations we finally have an agreement with Nigeria on repatriation?
Mr Blunt
I regret to inform the right hon. Gentleman that we are still waiting for the Nigerians to complete their legislative processes, but that is in process and I am delighted to report to him that we have every expectation that it will be brought to a conclusion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we do not control both sides of a negotiation and we have to ensure that we have partner countries that will agree to compulsory transfer. He, of all people in this House, is well aware of how difficult that is. That does not mean that we will not try to improve on the dreadful performance of the previous Administration.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
6. When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
7. When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
9. When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
12. When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
13. When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
We intend to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows.
Jessica Morden
A host of organisations, including Citizens Advice, the Law Society and the Select Committee on Justice, have criticised the lack of an evidential basis for the proposed legal aid changes and have asked the Government to slow down and think again. Will the Minister be willing to act on their advice?
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Lady’s question implies that the Government have not been listening. I would say that that is not the case. The consultation elicited some 5,000 responses, we have now had three Adjournment debates on legal aid reform, hundreds of questions have been tabled and I have been engaging in debates, sometimes with shadow Ministers, outside this place. I would say that the Government have been doing a lot of listening on the issue and we will be ready for legislation shortly.
Chris Evans
Solicitors have complained to me that the proposals could turn Islwyn into a legal aid desert. What estimate has been made of the number of practitioners who would stop legal aid work if the reforms were made?
Mr Djanogly
The Government’s position is not to start off with the number of legal aid practitioners. Our starting point is the sort of legal aid system that we should have in this country, which will support vulnerable people. The number of practitioners to service that will follow.
Rosie Cooper
Does the Minister believe that there is anything to learn from the Secretaries of State who have been dealing with forestry and health when it comes to rushing through proposals that have been rejected by professionals, the public and coalition Members of both Houses?
Mr Djanogly
I think that I answered that question previously. I certainly believe that we have listened and engaged fully.
Liz Kendall
The Minister has just said that he wants his plans to protect the most vulnerable, but his own impact assessment says that low-income families, women and minority ethnic groups will be disproportionately affected. Can he explain how that is fair?
Mr Djanogly
Legal aid per se involves poor people, so if we are going to reduce costs it will impact on poor people. It is true that individuals with protected equality characteristics are over-represented within the current client base of civil and family legal aid when compared with the population as a whole, although the extent of that varies by category of law.
Julie Elliott
Will the Minister be taking the advice of the Select Committee on Justice, which recommended that the Government should assess the
“merits of the cost-saving proposals put forward by the Law Society”,
namely the alternative savings of £384 million—£34 million more than the Government’s proposals would save—while protecting all civil and family legal representation?
Mr Djanogly
Various alternatives have been suggested by the institution that the hon. Lady mentions and by many others during the consultation. The question is whether they would work and whether they would deliver the required savings within the spending review period. The main proposal of the Law Society, which she mentioned, is an alcohol levy—a penny on your pint to pay for lawyers.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I am glad that the Minister is actively listening on this issue—[Interruption.] We will see, won’t we? Under his proposals, someone with a debt case who faces homelessness will be eligible for legal aid, so why should someone facing homelessness in a case of unlawful eviction not also be eligible?
Mr Djanogly
Those are the sorts of issues that we have been considering very carefully through the consultation process. It is very important to realise that even after our reforms we will still be spending £40 million on housing legal aid, for example, and £6 million with debt, so it would be wrong to say that we are abolishing those areas of law. We are looking to get better value and to make sure that the money goes towards helping the vulnerable.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister will have noted a great degree of consistency in the submissions on the proposed changes to legal aid, with concerns expressed about family law, debt and housing law, medical negligence and cost-shunting on to other Departments. He has confirmed that the consultation on legal aid has been a genuine listening exercise. Can he confirm that many of the points expressed by organisations such as the Law Society and the CAB have been heard and, critically, will be acted on?
Mr Djanogly
All of the submissions have been heard and are being considered very carefully—I can assure my hon. Friend of that. As for whether we put them all into place—that is unlikely, but we will consider them all and where we need to change our proposals, changes will be made.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
I recently met Langleys Solicitors, a firm based in my constituency, which feels that the recommendations about reductions in the provision of legal aid combined with the recommendations from Lord Jackson’s report on civil court reforms will seriously undermine access to justice and the rule of law. What assurances can my hon. Friend give to Langleys, my constituents and me that the Government’s reforms will not make it more difficult for ordinary people to have recourse to the courts to right wrongs?
Mr Djanogly
I have to be up front with my hon. Friend and say that less money will be spent on legal aid, which means that fewer people will have access to legal aid. The important issue is that we direct scarce resources to the most vulnerable, and that is exactly what we will be doing by prioritising those whose security and liberty is at risk and those whose homes are at risk of immediate repossession.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I was fortunate to secure a debate on legal aid last week in which I and others had the opportunity to go through some detailed concerns. Sadly, the Minister ran out of time in which to respond; I trust that he will respond to us all in writing. He implied then that there would be changes to the original proposals. Can he confirm that now, and what will they be?
Mr Djanogly
I can confirm that a letter has been sent to my hon. Friend, so he should get it shortly. As I said in the Adjournment debate, which helpfully enabled hon. Members to put their points across, issues that were raised then are being looked at carefully by the Government. We will assess those and some of them may have implications for our legislation in due course.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has accepted Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on civil litigation reform. He said they were “very attractive” and he was “impressed” by them, so why is the Minister ignoring the report’s recommendation that the Government make
“no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility”
because
“The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate costs”?
Mr Djanogly
Legal aid does play a very important part in access to justice, which the Government support. Lord Justice Jackson was looking at civil costs, and in that context he looked at legal aid. On that point, as in various other instances, we did not agree with his recommendations. What we will put forward in legislation is a total all-encompassing package. The shadow Minister will appreciate that we consulted on public and private funding at the same time so that those who wanted to respond could do so in the context of both.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to promote work opportunities in prisons.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
We have made clear our intention to make prisons places of work and industry. In the Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, published last December, we set out our proposals to break the destructive cycle of crime. That included proposals for prison work. Our response to the consultation on the Green Paper will be published soon.
Tony Baldry
Can my right hon. and learned Friend kindly tell me how many more work and training opportunities there are in prisons today than there were this time last year?
Mr Clarke
No, I cannot. [Interruption.] The system requires considerable transformation. We intend to introduce as widely as possible a system in which it is normal for prisoners to have a working day doing proper work, getting into work habits and acquiring skills. We have some—comparatively few—outstanding examples of workshops run by outside companies and we are attracting wide interest from companies in how we can do that. Prison Industries will have to be addressed and we will probably have to put it on a different and more commercial footing. We are looking for work that can properly be done in prison without jeopardising legitimate small businesses outside. A moment ago I was accused of rushing everything. The great thing about such reforms, which will transform the prison system, is that there is no point in delivering straight away experiments that have not been thought through. I intend to change the atmosphere of prisons very substantially once we have got down to practical ways of doing so.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The introduction of work-based regimes more widely will be warmly welcomed by people who know about rehabilitation, but victims are concerned about reparation. Will the Secretary of State make sure that any wages earned as part of a work-based regime go directly to benefit victims or the communities that have been victims of crime?
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s response on increasing work opportunities in prison, but will that extend to more education and training in prison?
Mr Clarke
A great deal of education and training is delivered in prisons now, but it needs to be improved; it is patchy. We are not losing our focus on making sure that the basic problems of literacy and numeracy are tackled, let alone other further education delivered, and we hope to make sure that the contracts for provision of education and training services are of universally good quality.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has a ten-minute rule Bill which would make it mandatory for those sentenced to two years or more to undertake a relevant offender management programme before being considered for early release. Do the Government intend to take those proposals forward?
Mr Clarke
We sentence people to prison terms as reparation for the wrong that they have done to their victims and society, and when they have completed their sentence we release them. Under existing rules they may be released from prison halfway through the named sentence, but they are on licence thereafter, subject to recall, and that has to be made meaningful. I do not want to add to the number of people in prison who are serving beyond any sentence that they have had imposed upon them for the crime that they committed, but who are waiting to go through some loophole which shows that they qualify for release, not least because it is very difficult to organise true opportunities for prisoners to be able to satisfy such requirements.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
10. What steps his Department is taking to involve the charity sector in prison-based initiatives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The National Offender Management Service is committed to opening commissioning to all sectors. The Green Paper and the Ministry of Justice business plan for 2011 to 2015 set out that we will no longer provide rehabilitation services directly without testing where the private, voluntary and community sectors can provide them more effectively.
Mark Menzies
It is likely that many of the contracts for the rehabilitation of offenders will be placed with large providers, but what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the charities and small-scale providers that do a lot of valuable work in that regard are being rewarded under payment by results?
Mr Blunt
The value of what is done by charities and the voluntary sector in the rehabilitation of offenders cannot possibly be overstated. There are thousands of groups and tens of thousands of people who want to engage with us to deliver the rehabilitation of offenders because it is the right thing to do. With a system now focusing on outcomes rather than inputs, it would be fairly foolish to ignore the capacity of this great army of auxiliaries to help us deliver rehabilitation.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Barnardo’s is working with G4S Parc prison in my constituency, along with a range of other partners, to look at the Parc supporting families scheme and the family intervention unit, which take the most difficult and prolific offenders and work with them to bring change. I invite the Minister to come to Bridgend to see how that work is changing outcomes, changing the opportunities for rehabilitation, bringing security for communities and reducing reoffending. It is an excellent example of the schemes that we are looking for.
Mr Blunt
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s invitation. I have visited all the prisons in Wales, but I have rather more of the estate to get around before I have seen them all. I am anxious to hear about the kind of scheme she describes. I see examples of good practice all over the country of people working very hard in both the prison and probation services to engage other organisations, as she has described, and help the rehabilitation of offenders.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to improve rehabilitation for those convicted of drug offences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Our proposals on the rehabilitation of drug-misusing offenders were published in a Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, in December 2010. These include: ensuring that sentencing helps offenders to come off drugs; piloting drug recovery wings in prisons; supporting the Department of Health in developing payment-by-results drug recovery pilots; and testing options for intensive community-based treatment for both female and male offenders.
Chris White
Between 2005-06 and 2009-10, there was a 24% rise in the number of drug offences committed in Warwickshire. There is clearly a need for improved levels of rehabilitation for those who have suffered from drug addiction. The charitable, voluntary and social enterprise sectors are often best placed to provide this support. Will the Minister therefore tell the House what work he is doing to engage with those sectors to deliver better support and improve rehabilitation while at the same time reducing drug-related crime?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has pointed clearly to a consequence of the failure to rehabilitate offenders effectively, which should have happened under the previous Administration. That is why we are engaged in what we are calling a revolution in rehabilitation. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), we will have to ensure that we engage the full capacity of the voluntary and charitable sectors, in co-operation with the state sector and the private sector, in order to maximise our capacity to deliver and to focus them on outcomes rather than inputs.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Has the Minister seen the headline in a national newspaper today stating that drug addicts are pocketing benefits amounting to more than £1 billion every year? Does he accept that the welfare system needs to be reformed to give addicts help in the form of treatment, rather than funding their addiction, and how does he see such a proposal being taken forward?
Mr Blunt
That is an extremely important part of effecting the rehabilitation of offenders. The number of offenders whose offences are drug-related is very substantial, so in conjunction with the Department of Health we are examining and introducing pilots on the whole treatment of drug addiction in the community. Many offenders will enter those pilots and then, I hope, the scheme when we roll it out system-wide by the end of the Parliament. We are also examining with the Department of Health how we treat people in prison in order to ensure that we are much more focused on abstinence as well. I fear I may exhaust the patience of Mr Speaker if I go on.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
14. How much his Department spent on legal aid for cases concerning immigration in the latest period for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Legal Services Commission’s gross operating expenditure on asylum and immigration legal aid in the financial year 2009-10 was £90 million, of which about £26 million was for immigration matters.
Simon Kirby
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce the amount of money spent on legal aid for immigration cases is to resolve those cases as promptly as possible, and that, had we not inherited an immigration system in crisis from the Labour party, the costs would be lower already?
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend is quite right. The best way to reduce the amount of money spent on immigration legal aid is to retain taxpayer funding for serious issues only. Our current view is that most individuals involved in immigration cases, such as those applying for study or work visas or making citizenship applications, should not require legal aid to resolve their issues.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
15. What recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses on support for victims of violent crime; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and the Justice Secretary are in regular contact. The commissioner has just completed her first year in post, working to a set of priorities agreed last year with my right hon. and learned Friend following a meeting with him. These included looking at the most effective provision for people bereaved by murder and manslaughter, and improving the treatment of young victims and witnesses.
As Minister with responsibility for victims policy, I have met the commissioner twice formally and on other occasions informally. We discussed and continue to discuss support for victims of violent crime as well as all other aspects of policy relating to victims and witnesses.
Margot James
In Stourbridge we have a good Victim Support service, staffed largely by volunteers, but it operates on something of a shoestring, which affects awareness and its potential for partnership working. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be some shift of resource in the system towards Victim Support?
Mr Blunt
I pay tribute to Victim Support, which plays an extremely valuable role in supporting victims and witnesses throughout the country. This year we agreed a funding deal with it, involving a grant of £38 million every year for three years, giving it greater financial security. Victim Support is also able to bid for additional money for local projects from the £18.5 million victims general fund, for which we invited bids this year. Overall, the Ministry of Justice is committing more money to the victims voluntary sector this year than last year, which of course, in the dreadful financial circumstances that we inherited from the previous Administration, shows our priorities.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Government talk a really good game about supporting victims, but the reality is that under cover of a review the British Crime Survey is cutting questions on victims’ views, the witness and victim experience survey has ended and Her Majesty’s Courts Service’s court-users survey is coming to an end. We need to listen more to the victims of crime and put them at the heart of our judicial system, so can we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will reinstate survey questions or, indeed, improve on them, and not push under the carpet the experiences of victims and witnesses of how the British legal system operates?
Mr Blunt
There we have it—a demonstration of acquiring inputs, measurements and targets rather than focusing on outputs. The last thing that we do, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is ignore victims. When we come forward with our strategy for victims and witnesses, he will see the extent of our commitment to ensuring that victims and witnesses are properly supported in the justice system.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
16. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the removal of foreign national prisoners who are awaiting deportation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I am in regular contact with my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, and my officials are in regular contact with their counterparts at the Home Office. The removal of foreign national prisoners awaiting deportation is a mutual priority.
Jessica Lee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response. I am sure he agrees that the incarceration of criminals from outside the UK is not a duty owed by taxpayers from Erewash or, indeed, elsewhere throughout the country. The Government’s sentencing Green Paper explores how punishments for foreign offenders could include immediate removal, rather than imprisonment in this country. Will my hon. Friend please update the House on proposals to consider that measure?
Mr Blunt
There will very shortly be an opportunity for all right hon. and hon. Members to see our proposals in response to the consultation on the Green Paper, and it would be appropriate to wait until then so that proposals come forward together in a coherent manner. We have to remember that we are dealing with the consequences of an era of inaction when, for example, the Council of Europe additional protocol on the transfer of prisoners was open for signature in 1997 and it took until November 2009 for that lot over there to sign it.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I shall begin with a topical statement. On 26 April, I attended a Council of Europe ministerial conference in Turkey on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. I was clear that the Court must focus on truly important cases and have proper regard to the judgment of national Parliaments and courts. I met a number of Ministers from other member states and senior figures from the Council of Europe and the Court who were receptive to this view.
Mr Raab
In a recent and novel ruling, a man convicted of robbery defeated a deportation order on human rights grounds because he had a girlfriend—a relationship that the court described as that of a courting couple and no more. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider amending the Human Rights Act 1998 and the human rights clause in the UK Borders Act 2007 to prevent this kind of judicial legislation under article 8 of the European convention?
Mr Clarke
I have not seen that case, but I agree that it sounds like a rather sweeping interpretation of the right to family life, which is what the European convention confirms. If my hon. Friend will let me have the details, I will inquire into the case to see how it reached such a startling conclusion. It is possible that the report that he read, in whichever newspaper he read it, did not bear a very close resemblance to what actually occurred.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor has announced plans—this was raised by the previous Lord Chancellor—to reduce by half the sentence for an offender if he or she pleads guilty. In a remarkably flippant response, his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), asked us to pause and reflect on the thoughts and views of a victim of rape. It is not only Labour MPs who think this is nonsense, nor only judges or victims groups: the Lord Chancellor’s own Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses says that it is bonkers. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider?
Mr Clarke
We are going to give the outcome of our consultation shortly, but I think that that proposal is likely to survive. The fact is that we have always had a reduced tariff for early guilty pleas in this country. It always startles the public when they discover that this has underlined our sentencing policy for many years. It is true that we are thinking of putting up the reduction to a half. It makes an enormous difference to costs, police time and the involvement of unnecessary preparations for trial if everybody leaves guilty pleas to the last possible moment. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary rightly said, victims and witnesses are put through an ordeal if they are preparing for a trial where they expect to be accused of lying because the man has not been induced to plead at an early enough stage. Those are the considerations that lay behind this proposal.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
T2. Last month, I visited Kirklees restorative justice team, who, in Kirklees alone, need to keep only two offenders out of prison for a year to cover the whole of their budget. However, does the Minister agree that probably one of the most impressive elements of restorative justice is the immeasurable improvement in victims’ perceptions?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The evidence from Northern Ireland, where a statutory form of restorative justice has been working positively in the youth sector, shows 85% levels of victim satisfaction. The data are getting better regarding the effect of restorative justice on the rehabilitation of offenders, and appear to show at least a 14% improvement if we use it. That is a pretty convincing case for the proper use of restorative justice, quite apart from the financial benefits that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T3. The Secretary of State will be well aware of the tragic loss of five young lives on the secure prison estate in recent months. Will he outline what work he and his officials are undertaking to look into those tragic deaths, and what measures he intends to put in place to prevent future occurrences?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
We have had an unfortunate instance, but we will obviously investigate each of those tragic cases. Unfortunately, there are always extremely vulnerable people in young offender institutions, and steps have to be taken to protect them against self-harm. I have no reason to believe that anything has changed significantly that connects these deaths. I assure the hon. Gentleman that each and every one of them will be carefully considered to see whether anything went wrong or whether something can be improved.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
T4. Does the Secretary of State share my concern and that of my constituents that prisoners are not spending their time inside constructively? Will any future Bill address that issue by ensuring that prisoners spend more time at work than in their cells?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
As I explained earlier, I feel that concern strongly. The matter does not so much require legislation as sensible organisation, change in the structure of Prison Industries, and more leeway for governors to arrange work when there is a sensible opportunity to do so. A significant change in the culture of parts of the Prison Service would add to the good work that goes on at the moment, which is quite rare and is scattered across the prison estate. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important aim.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
T6. Earlier this month, the foetal anti-convulsant litigation against Sanofi Aventis was discontinued after six years’ preparation. The claimants and their families have been denied their day in court because legal aid funding was withdrawn at the last moment. Will the Minister say what funding arrangements will be available for multi-party actions in future so that such families are not denied access to justice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The funding of clinical negligence cases in this country is about 50:50 between legal aid and conditional fee arrangements—in other words, private funding. We believe that when people have the opportunity of private funding, they should take that option. In looking at our proposals for reviewing privately funded litigation, we are taking clinical negligence cases on board and are moulding our proposals to help those who want to take such cases.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The feeling has been expressed by several sources in the two prisons in my constituency that former members of the armed services are not looked on favourably in Prison Service recruitment. Will the Minister reassure me that that is not the case?
Mr Blunt
It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend, given our mutual background, that I would regard such discrimination against former members of the armed services as wholly unacceptable. If prison officers can produce evidence for that, I would be extremely interested to receive it.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
T8. The Crime and Security Act 2010 received Royal Assent more than a year ago. How much longer will victims of overseas terrorism have to wait to receive their compensation? Those victims include Will Pike, who will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair, following injuries sustained in the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008.
Mr Blunt
I saw Will Pike and his father last week along with another representative of victims of terrorism overseas. We are bringing forward proposals on that, and will do so when we bring forward comprehensive proposals on victims, witnesses and criminal injuries compensation.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
T7. Does the Minister agree that justice is best dispensed through a network of local courts, such as that at Lowestoft in my constituency? Will he provide an assurance that, following the recent round of closures, there are no plans for further rationalisation and that every effort will be made to sustain the existing network of magistrates courts?
Mr Djanogly
I believe that justice is best dispensed through a network of courts that is efficient and well-utilised, and that provides the facilities that are expected of a modern courts system, particularly for victims and witnesses. I confirm that there are no current plans for further rationalisation.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Will the Justice Secretary take this opportunity to update the House on his policy on the office of chief coroner?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
We are considering our policy in the light of the debate and the result in the House of Lords. I have been discussing the matter with various interest groups, various Members of another place, and one or two Members of this House. Some of the lobbyists attribute to the chief coroner powers to tackle all kinds of failings in the system that the legislation never gave him or her. We could deliver some of the substantial changes that need to be made to the coroner system rather more quickly by distributing the functions elsewhere, rather than by creating unnecessarily a whole new office. I am considering the arguments. We ought to concentrate on what outcomes we are trying to produce, rather than argue about structures and new institutions.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Has the Secretary of State read the research commissioned by Lord Ashcroft and conducted by Populus called “Crime, Punishment & The People—Public opinion and the criminal justice debate”? If he has read the report, which I commend to him, will he confirm that its findings, which will make sobering reading for him, will be part of the proposals on sentencing?
Mr Clarke
I shall look at the report to see whether it is the source of my hon. Friend’s views on the subject of crime and punishment, which he frequently gives, and then I will try to find some counter-reading to recommend to him. I will try to study it if I get the chance.
The purpose of sentencing in this country is to punish offenders effectively and proportionately for what they have done. The purpose that I intend to add to that more clearly is to try to reduce the number who simply offend again and come back into the system. If we cut reoffending, it will mean fewer crimes and fewer victims, and we will make a positive contribution instead of recycling the same old people through the same old not very well functioning system.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State take a look at the case of Shrien Dewani, a British citizen who faces extradition to South Africa? He has shown me convincing evidence that he will not face a fair trial there. Can we reconsider extraditing that citizen?
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T10. The Home Secretary recently announced her intention for police to do 80% of charging. I can see how that is to the benefit of the police, but has the Justice Secretary had any discussions about how we can ensure that it is not to the disbenefit of justice?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
That too is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the question should be addressed to the Home Office first.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Legal aid to take family cases to court will in future be available only when domestic violence is an issue. Otherwise, couples will be expected to go to mediation. However, mediation may not be appropriate where there is a high degree of conflict, even when domestic violence is absent. What consideration is the Minister giving to how such cases will work after legal aid is removed?
Mr Djanogly
We are studying that issue very carefully through the consultation. We believe that mediation, as a cheaper, quicker and less stressful alternative, is normally the best way to go, but there will be circumstances in which it is not appropriate, domestic violence being one of them. We are considering the definition of domestic violence carefully.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Prisoners who reoffend cost the UK economy £10 billion a year. Is not the real solution for the Secretary of State to continue his excellent record as a public service reformer by incentivising private companies to rehabilitate prisoners and letting them earn a profit when they cut reoffending rates?
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked with me on public service reform in the past. I am glad he shares our objective because, as he says, it saves the economy substantial amounts and reduces the number of victims and further crimes if a higher proportion of those who finish their sentence do not go on to reoffend and get convicted again. The approach that we are adopting to improving the reoffending reduction programmes, which is to pay by results and make it quite clear that charitable and ethical investors can get a return on their capital if they succeed in delivering that objective, is a valuable and innovative way of trying to achieve real results rather than strive needlessly.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Mr Dean, a constituent of mine, is still waiting after three years for full payment of a compensation award from a persistent offender. What action are the Government taking, and what action will they take, against persistent non-payment of compensation awards by persistent offenders?
Mr Blunt
I am afraid that we inherited a criminal injuries compensation scheme that was £765 million in debt. That is why we have inadequate funds to pay compensation, and why the payment of compensation in many cases has, regrettably, been delayed. We are trying to repair a system that was bust when we inherited it.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Recently in my constituency, a convicted sex offender who was automatically released at the halfway point of his sentence reoffended in the most appalling way. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss both automatic release for predatory child sex offenders, and whether it is appropriate to house such individuals close to young families, schools, a playground and a park?
Mr Blunt
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the individual circumstances of that case. On the face of it, that situation should not have been enabled to happen. There should have been a sensible degree of risk assessment and a proper placement of the individual concerned. I am therefore only too happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the details of that case.
House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government’s plans to reform the other place.
At the last general election, each major party committed to a democratically elected second Chamber. The coalition agreement set out very clearly the Government’s intention to deliver that, but the roots of these changes can be traced back much further. A century ago, the Government, led by Herbert Asquith, promised to create
“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis.”
There has been progress in the intervening years—the majority of hereditary peers have gone, and the other place is now predominantly made up of life peers. We should see ourselves as completing that work.
People have a right to choose their representatives. That is the most basic feature of a modem democracy. Our second Chamber, which is known for its wisdom and expertise, is none the less undermined by the fact it is not directly accountable to the British people. I am therefore publishing a draft Bill today, and an accompanying White Paper, which set out proposals for reform.
In the programme for government, we undertook to
“establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.”
I chair that cross-party Committee, which reached agreement on many of the most important issues—not on all of them, but good progress was made—and those deliberations have greatly shaped the proposals that are being published today. I should like to pay tribute to all members of the Committee, particularly Opposition Members, who engaged with us in an open and collaborative fashion. Let me also thank those individuals whose past work on Lords reform has laid the foundations for what we are doing today, particularly the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the right hon. and noble Lord Wakeham. Rather than start anew, the Government have benefited from their previous endeavours. Today’s proposals represent a genuine, collective effort over time.
The draft Bill and White Paper will now be scrutinised by a Joint Committee composed of 13 peers and 13 Members of this House. The Committee will report early next year, and a Government Bill will then be introduced.
The Prime Minister and I are clear that we want the first elections to the reformed upper Chamber to take place in 2015. However, although we know what we want to achieve, we are open minded about how we get there. Clearly, our fixed goal is greater democratic legitimacy for the other place, but we will be pragmatic in order to achieve that. We therefore propose an upper House made up of 300 members, each eligible for a single term of three Parliaments. Three hundred is the number that we judge to be right, but this is an art and not a science. In the vast majority of bicameral systems, the second Chamber is significantly smaller. That arrangement helps to maintain a clear distinction between the two Houses. We are confident that 300 full-time Members can cover the work comfortably. We are, however, open to alternative views on that.
The coalition agreement committed the Government to produce proposals for
“a wholly or mainly elected chamber.”
That debate is reflected in what we are publishing today. The Bill makes provision for 80% of Members to be elected, with the remaining 20% to be appointed independently. The 60 appointed Members would sit as Cross Benchers, not as representatives of political parties, and in addition bishops of the Church of England would continue to sit in the other place, but would be reduced in number from 26 to 12. The White Paper includes the case for a 100% elected House of Lords. The 80:20 split is the more complicated option, and so has been put into the draft Bill in order to illustrate it in legislative terms. The 100% option would be easy to substitute into the draft Bill should that be where we end up.
There are people on both sides of the House who support a fully elected Chamber, believing that an elected House of Lords should be just that. Others, again on both sides, take a different view, and support having a non-elected component in order to retain an element of non-party expertise, as well as to keep greater distinction between the two Houses. Personally, I have always supported a 100% elected House of Lords, but the key thing is not to make the best the enemy of the good. That approach has stymied Lords reform for far too long. After all, 80% is a whole lot better than 0%.
Elections to the new reformed House will be staggered: at each general election a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. That is to prevent the other place from becoming a mirror image of this House. In the Bill we set out how those elections could be conducted using the single transferable vote. The coalition agreement specifies only that the system must be proportional, and what is most important is that it is different from whatever we use in the Commons. That is to ensure that the two Chambers have distinct mandates; one should not seek to emulate the other.
STV allows for that, and would also give the upper Chamber greater independence from party control. Votes are cast for individuals rather than parties, putting the emphasis on the expertise and experience that candidates offer, rather than the colour of the rosette they wear. We want to preserve the independence of spirit that has long differentiated that House from this one. I know that some Members prefer a party list system, including Opposition members of the cross-party Committee I chaired. We are willing to have this debate, and have not ruled out a list-based system in the White Paper.
The Commons will retain ultimate say over legislation through the Parliament Acts, and will continue to have a decisive right over the vote of supply. In order for a Government to remain in office they will still need to secure the confidence of MPs. The other place will continue to be a revising Chamber, providing scrutiny and expertise. Its size, electoral cycle, voting system, and terms will all help to keep it distinct from the Commons and a place that remains one step removed from the day-to-day party politics that, quite rightly, animate this House. What will be different is that our second Chamber will finally have a democratic mandate, and will be much more accountable as a result.
Clearly, the transition must be carefully managed. We propose to phase in the reform over three electoral cycles. In 2015 a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. The number of sitting peers will be reduced by a third, although we are not prescribing the process for that; it will be up to the parties in the other place to decide. In 2020, a further third will come in under the new system, and then again in 2025. There are other ways of staging the transition, however, and the White Paper sets out two of them.
To conclude, history teaches us that completing the unfinished business of Lords reform is not without challenges. Our proposals are careful and balanced. They represent evolution, not revolution, and are a typically British change. I hope that Members from both sides of the House and the other place will help us to get the proposals right. The Government are ready to listen and are prepared to adapt, but we are determined, in the end, to act. I commend this statement to the House.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement, and for how he chaired the working group—squaring the views of Lord Strathclyde with those of the rest of us was nothing short of a master class in conflict resolution. I am also pleased to see the Prime Minister here supporting the Deputy Prime Minister. The latter must feel like the manager of West Ham seeing his chairman after the final whistle on Saturday. I hope he has a better outcome than the chairman—I mean the manager—of West Ham had on Saturday.
I agree that our politics and constitution are in need of reform. Like the Deputy Prime Minister’s party, Labour had a manifesto commitment to create a fully elected second Chamber. Let us be frank: Lords reform is not near the top of any of our constituents’ priorities. They are more interested—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for that support; I am not sure whether the Deputy Prime Minister is. Our constituents are more interested in their schools and hospitals, and whether they will have a job at the end of the year. This is about how we write the laws that affect us, including laws on schools and hospitals, and who writes those laws, so if we are doing it, we have to get it right.
The present situation is unsustainable. The Lords has more than 800 Members, and the Prime Minister intends to pack in another 200, at great expense to the taxpayer—117 have already been added since May 2010—while at the same time cutting the number of elected Members in this House. More unelected, fewer elected—and he calls it progress. I fear that the Deputy Prime Minister will soon realise that the Tories are the real obstacle to reform, just as they were when we were in power.
It is important that we get the details right. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he supports a fully elected second Chamber, yet he is unveiling a Bill today that leaves at least 20% appointed, plus bishops, plus Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister. The Joint Committee will have a built-in Government majority, so the idea of it overturning anything of substance in the Bill by next year is unrealistic. These proposals risk being a dog’s dinner, with nobody happy at the outcome— not even the Lib Dem activists, whom the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to appease. After 12 months in office, he has nothing new to say on Lords reform, but is simply putting out proposals that kick the issue into the long grass.
Before the Deputy Prime Minister delegates responsibility for the Bill to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform, and to Lord Strathclyde, can he answer these 11 questions on the proposals?
Bearing in mind that the country comprehensively rejected the AV system two weeks ago, is the Deputy Prime Minister seriously suggesting that he should impose a system of proportional representation for the second Chamber without consulting the electorate? What powers does he want a reformed House of Lords to have? How will he deal with the conventions that currently govern the relationship between the two Chambers? Does he believe that the relationship should be codified? What role does he envisage for the bishops in the second Chamber, and why 12? Can he set out the cost of a reformed second Chamber? If it is possible that no peers would be forced to leave until 2025, what does he predict the maximum size and cost of the second Chamber will be in the interim? Will he confirm that he wants reform on the statute book by the next election? Will he confirm whether he intends to use the Parliament Acts to force the proposals through? Will he also confirm whether coalition MPs and peers will be whipped to vote for the Bill when it comes out of the Joint Committee? Finally, will he allow a debate on his Bill in Government time before the summer recess?
The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed by the publication of this Bill just how irrelevant he and his party are in the coalition Government. I am afraid that the Bill, the White Paper and the whole process are a huge anticlimax.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Not only did the right hon. Gentleman fluff the lines at the beginning, he also failed to rise to the occasion. This is an occasion when, for once, he could put aside his sour observations and try to work across parties, as we have in the cross-party Committee, to make some progress not only, I should remind Opposition Members, on something that was in their manifesto—by the way, so was AV, but a fat lot of good that did us all—but on something that we have been discussing as a country for almost 100 years. If that is not long enough, I do not know what is.
Before I turn to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, let me address the vital issue, which he has raised once again, about a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. It would be so much easier to take the right hon. Gentleman’s admonitions in favour of 100% seriously if, during the 13 years under Labour, more had been delivered than 0%. Given that the country has been debating House of Lords reform for more than a century and that all three parties made a manifesto commitment on this issue last year, it is crucial not to make the best the enemy of the good. We have set out in the Bill how an 80:20 split would work, and we have maintained the option in the White Paper of moving to 100% if that is what people want. That is exactly what we will submit to the Joint Committee.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, the cost is almost impossible to estimate at this stage, without knowing precisely what the final composition of the House of Lords will be or the method of transition from where we are now to where we want to be in 2025. In the Bill, we have proposed a staged election—or election and appointment—by thirds in 2015, 2020 and 2025, alongside a staged reduction, commensurate with that, from the House of Lords as it is at the moment.
The Deputy Prime Minister
We will leave it to the House of Lords itself to decide the precise method of reduction by thirds. We have set out two options in the White Paper. One would involve moving to the full reduction of the size of the House of Lords to 300 immediately in 2015; the other would be to do nothing until 2025, which would mean that the reformed House of Lords would have become very large indeed in 15 years’ time. We would then make the reduction at that point. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that we will invite the Joint Committee to look at.
I can confirm our determination to see the reform of the House of Lords reach the statute book in time for the elections in 2015. We want to see the first elections to a reformed House of Lords take place in 2015. We will treat this legislation as we treat all Government legislation. This is something to which both our manifestos—in fact, all the manifestos—are committed, and it is clearly set out in the coalition agreement. We will use all the legislative tools at our disposal to deliver on that commitment.
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Brevity is therefore of the essence.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate that there will be a warm welcome for the fact that he is introducing a draft Bill? We look forward to its being thoroughly scrutinised by the Joint Committee. Will he please explain how the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament will change when an elected second Chamber competes with this House and its Members for democratic legitimacy?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We discussed this in the cross-party Committee. It is precisely to avoid competition between the two Houses that the Bill and the White Paper propose different systems of election, different geographical constituencies—the Lords would not represent constituencies in the way that we understand in this House—and non-renewable 15-year terms. Bicameral systems in other countries show that, as long as the mandate and the term in one House are very different from those in the other, an asymmetrical relationship can be preserved.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The stated aims of the proposal are clearly legitimacy and accountability. How would an election system that leaves the electorate unable to understand who they have elected add to legitimacy, and how would accountability be aided by 15-year non-renewable terms, during which there would be no power of recall for the electorate? Is it not true that a mandate given to the second Chamber would reduce the mandate of this House?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the insight that it is best to have long non-renewable terms in the other place in a reformed House of Lords precisely to avoid such conflict with the other place was not established by the present Government or the cross-party Committee I chaired; rather, it is an idea that has enjoyed consensus from the days of the Wakeham commission onwards. If we look at the proposals from a cross-party group of MPs, which were given considerable support by the previous Labour Government in 2005—the “Breaking the Deadlock” proposals—we find that a preference was made not only for non-renewable terms of between 12 and 14 years, but for the single transferable vote. These are not new proposals: they are drawn from a lot of insights identified by others from all parties in the past.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Given that this issue has been on the agenda of Parliament for so long and that reforming the second Chamber is now the settled will of the leadership of all three parties, is not the test of this Bill whether the leadership of those parties makes sure that the democratically elected Members of Parliament prevail in a reform that is long overdue and that the proposals are not derailed by people who are not elected, but are either hereditary or appointed—a completely unacceptable branch of a modern democratic legislature?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend in the basic principle that people should be able to hold to account those who make the laws of the land by which the people of this country have to abide. That is a simple democratic principle: it is not new; it is shared by Members of all parties; it is widely recognised as a simple democratic principle across the democratic world. It is interesting to note that there are still people even in this democratically elected Chamber who seem to resist that very principle.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that a sounder approach would be to decide what we want the House of Lords to do and what its functions should be before we decide how it is made up? Otherwise, we are in the situation of picking the team before we have decided what game it is going to play. Surely if it is to be elected, any self-respecting elected Members of the upper House will not feel themselves bound by the customs and practice that have applied to an unelected Chamber—and we will thus get conflict between this Chamber and the upper Chamber.
The Deputy Prime Minister
We already know the role of the House of Lords—scrutiny and revision. Every time this issue has been examined by a range of cross-party groups—the Wakeham commission was just one of many examples—the same conclusion has been reached: namely, those powers should remain the same and as long as the mandate, the electoral system and the terms of those elected in the other place are different, the basic relationship between the two Houses can remain constant.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether he intends to continue to pursue, in the words of Lord Steel of Aikwood,
“private obsessions with little public resonance—AV and an elected House of Lords, for example”?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I just do not recognise that. A commitment was made by the hon. Gentleman’s party, by the Labour party and by the party I lead and it was set out very clearly in all three manifestos of the main parties, so I do not think it can conceivably be described as a private preoccupation for one politician or another. This is an issue that we have been debating as a country for over a century. A very simple principle is at stake: do we believe, yes or no, that it is a good thing in a democracy for people to be able to hold those who make the laws of the land directly to account? According to our manifestos, all of us believe that that is the right principle; it is therefore right for this Government to try, on a consensual, open and pragmatic basis, to reach agreement so that we can finally put that principle into practice.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Most people will agree that the House of Lords has become too large, but that could be changed by all the parties agreeing to stop making so many new Lords. I do not know what happens on the buses in Sheffield and what people on those buses are saying, but I certainly know that people on the Clapham omnibus in my area are not demanding the reform of the House of Lords, as they have many, many higher priorities, yet they must see huge amounts of time, effort and money being wasted on this reform.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I accept that many issues that we discuss in the Chamber, and many issues with which any Government must deal, may not resonate on the doorsteps, but they may none the less be significant and important to our national life. I think we all agree that it is important for world trade rules to work properly, but that is not an issue that is raised with me on the doorstep very often. It is important for us to get local government finance right, and that too is not raised on the doorstep very often, but it is none the less significant and important. The fact that an issue is not raised with us by our constituents does not mean that it is not worthy of debate. If that is not the case, I cannot imagine why Government after Government have debated this very issue for nearly a century
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is this not yet another tatty roadshow brought to us by the same people who thought that the British people wanted the alternative vote? If the Deputy Prime Minister really believes that the British people want this reform—and I note that he makes no criticism at all of the way in which the House of Lords currently does its job—why does he not submit these proposals to a referendum, and let the British people decide?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year he fought a campaign in favour of—this was in the Conservative party manifesto—
“a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”
without a commitment to a referendum.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that Lords reform is essentially a penalty shoot-out in which no one will score, because nearly everyone is opposing nearly everyone else’s proposed reforms? If we are to join him in this constitutional version of the fantasy football league, will he tell us whether there will be a limit to the number of Members of the House of Lords who can be appointed by virtue of being Ministers, whether it will be possible for elected Members to be appointed as Ministers, and why there is still discrimination in favour of one Church and England in respect of the Lords spiritual?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Whatever one’s views about the Church, it is a fact that it is an established Church, and that is reflected in the composition of the House of Lords. As for ministerial appointments by the Prime Minister, we think it acceptable in principle—and this is another matter that we would invite the Joint Committee to examine—for future Prime Ministers to make supernumerary appointments of Ministers to the reformed House of Lords, but only for the duration of their holding of ministerial office. In other words, there would be a temporary mechanism whereby Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister could be held to account by one or other of the Houses in Westminster.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What sort of people does the Deputy Prime Minister wish to select for this hybrid Chamber, and why does he think that those skills would be lacking under a fully elected system?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It would not be up to me, or to any members of future Governments, to make such selections. Core to the proposals in the Bill for the model of 80% elected and 20% appointed is the making of appointments by an entirely independent and statutory appointments commission, the process conducted in an entirely open and meritocratic manner.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I must tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I have never seen less enthusiasm for a Minister’s proposals on the Government Benches. He should have looked behind him.
Being a sporting sort of person—as I am sure he is—would the Deputy Prime Minister be willing to bet me whatever sum he thinks appropriate that his proposed system will not be in place, or anywhere near it, in 2015?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Given that the hon. Gentleman and other Members in all parts of the House fought a general election last year on a manifesto commitment to House of Lords reform, given that, as I explained earlier, we have been discussing it as a country for a very long time, and given our determination in government to see the first step in these changes made in 2015, I am determined to prove the hon. Gentleman wrong.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his modest progress. The plain fact is that an unelected Lords is an illegitimate Lords, and that weakens the Lords and weakens Parliament as a whole. An elected Lords is a strong Lords, and that strengthens Parliament as a whole. Does my right hon. Friend not find it faintly ridiculous that after 13 years of abject failure, the dinosaurs over there are only interested in feather-bedding the dinosaurs upstairs?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I agree that the notion that somehow more democracy can weaken a legislature would strike most people outside this Chamber as an extraordinarily peculiar argument.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister personally believe that there is a case for keeping bishops in the House of Lords, and if so, what is it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, the Church is an established Church. We have set out proposals in the Bill, however, under which if progress were to be made on a largely elected, but partly appointed, House of Lords, on a supernumerary basis the Church would be represented but on a much smaller scale than we now—[Interruption.] The Bill envisages a cut from 26 bishops to 12.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister remind the House how many other countries elect people for 15 years—and he will have to do better than citing the likes of Papua New Guinea and Fiji this time? Does he not understand that having people there for 15 years will be the worst of all worlds, because they will claim democratic accountability to confront this elected House but they will be accountable to no one?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, the idea that in a reformed House of Lords there should be long non-renewable terms is not new. It has been put forward on numerous occasions before, and with cross-party support. However, if Members feel that is a step too far or the period of time is too long, that is exactly the kind of point on which the Joint Committee should seek to make representations.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome these proposals, but may I suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister might have included in his roll call of thanks the late Robin Cook, as it is often forgotten that under his leadership this House narrowly—by just three votes—failed to support an 80% elected Lords back in 2003? The Deputy Prime Minister knows that these proposals will go nowhere unless he is prepared to use the Parliament Acts. Will he now commit to using them if these proposals are blocked in the other place?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I have said, we are very keen to proceed on as consensual and pragmatic a basis as possible. [Interruption.] If I may just finish, we are presenting the Bill and the White Paper today. We hope the Joint Committee will be established before the summer, and it can then do a thorough job of applying pre-legislative scrutiny to the proposals we are publishing today, with a view to our submitting final draft legislation in the next Session. The Bill will be treated in the same way as any other Government legislation. It was part of all our manifestos and features in the coalition agreement, and if we cannot make headway by any other means, we will use all the legitimate instruments at our disposal to get the Bill implemented before the next general election. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about Robin Cook: I am very happy to recognise that it was an omission not to acknowledge the very significant role played by Robin Cook—and also, dare I say, by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and many other Opposition Members, who have for many years argued precisely the case we are seeking to promote today.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the draft Bill states that nothing in these proposals shall affect the primacy of the House of Commons. As nobody else has been able to define what “primacy” means, how does the Deputy Prime Minister propose to define it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Primacy is clearly set out in the two Parliament Acts, and was also clearly set out in my earlier statement. My view is that the fact of greater election to another Chamber does not in and of itself mean the balance between the two Houses is seriously disturbed. That is confirmed by examples of bicameral systems elsewhere in the democratic world.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister keeps asserting that the conventions will stay the same, but when the other place has 100% elected Senators or Lords and they take a different view from him, how will he assert this House’s authority over another elected House?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, I think that the Parliament Acts are very clear on that point.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend see these proposals as a means of empowering the voices of the devolved nations and the English regions? Manifestly, that will be achieved by electing people, rather than hand-picking appointees, in order to achieve balance across the country as a whole.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Clearly, a proportional electoral system, whichever one is finally settled on, would be reflective of opinion across the whole of the United Kingdom, so people across the United Kingdom can look forward to this as providing a greater reflection of opinions the length and breadth of the land.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking that the Joint Committee that is to be set up will include representatives from the smaller parties represented in Parliament, unlike the Committee that he set up previously, which brought forward this Bill?
The Deputy Prime Minister
This is clearly not something for the Government to decide; it is up to the usual channels, and I know that a number of conversations have already been had. Clearly, the ambition is—or should be, at least—that the Joint Committee embraces the widest possible opinion from this House.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) how one would resolve a clash between the two Houses, the Deputy Prime Minister said, “Well, this is why we are going to have different electoral systems, with proportional representation for the reformed Chamber.” Given that he believes that proportional representation is more democratic than first past the post, which of the two Chambers would he believe to be taking the correct decision if there were a clash on the basis that he outlined?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, as is set out clearly under the Parliament Acts and in line with the convention that the Government are held to account primarily by this Chamber, the supremacy of this House would remain.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister should be focusing on this issue, given that in the local elections in Sheffield people were bothered only about jobs, inflation and getting his party out of the town hall. However, how can he describe his vision as “representative” or “democratic”, given that it would give representation to those who are members of the Church of England but would not give it to those of Jewish faith, Catholic faith or Muslim faith?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Catholic Church prohibits its bishops from sitting in Parliaments and political bodies. Leaders of other faiths—I was in discussion with the Chief Rabbi just yesterday—also recognise that they do not possess the hierarchies that would allow them to provide that kind of representation. Those leaders of other faiths have long accepted, acknowledged and supported the idea of continued representation of the established Church in this country, even in a reformed House of Lords.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
May I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that it is the view of many on the Government Benches that we did not come to this place to vote for measures that will undermine the democratic supremacy and legitimacy of this House? It is widely known that, as he said in his remarks, he has passionate and long-held views on what should happen to the other place. Others of us have equally strong and passionate opposing views. Why does he seem to be indicating to the House today that he is not going to follow the example of what happened in March 2007 and February 2003, when this House last voted on these measures, and offer everyone in this House a free vote, so that they can vote with their conscience?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I acknowledge that people will have different views, will feel strongly about the matter and will come at it from different directions. The fact is that last year all of us, notwithstanding some relatively minor differences between our manifestos, stood before the British people on manifesto commitments to see reform to the other place finally be delivered. We will of course have further debates, deliberation and argument, not least in the Joint Committee, but this is Government business, this is in the coalition agreement and it is a manifesto commitment from Members in all parts of the House, and it should be proceeded with on that basis.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Against the background of events a few days ago when the British people voted by 70% to throw out the alternative vote, has it not yet crossed the Deputy Prime Minister’s mind that he has probably been set up by his Tory friends to do this job today?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Never occurred to me, Mr Speaker—never. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that any electoral change or changes to the electoral system can only be preceded by a referendum. It is worth remembering that we have changed electoral systems in this country on many occasions—for the European Parliament, the London assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—and that the Government are proposing to do it for elected mayors; all without referendums.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Only a fifth of the current Members of the House of Lords are women yet we still have the anachronism of places effectively being reserved for men in the form of bishops. There might be differences of opinion in this House about the merits of all-women shortlists, but surely we can all agree that in terms of diversity the last thing Parliament needs is de facto all-male shortlists. How will the Government take the opportunity presented by reforming the House of Lords to create a more diverse Parliament that better reflects society?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We cover this in the White Paper. My hon. Friend is right to say that a reform of the other place presents all political parties—and, I must stress, the party I lead in particular—with an opportunity to have greater diversity in those who represent us in a reformed House of Lords. It is primarily for the political parties to decide how they will use the mechanism of a new form of election to ensure that there is greater diversity in the candidates they put forward.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
May I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to bringing to House of Lords reform the same golden touch that he brought to the AV referendum? In practical terms, what will a wholly or partly elected House of Lords be able to do that the current House of Lords cannot?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It would fulfil the same function as it has at the moment, but it would do so with far greater legitimacy because it would be more directly accountable. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that there is something wrong with the argument of principle that those who have a hand in crafting the laws of this land should be directly accountable to the millions of people who have to abide by the laws of this land? I understand that there is a lot of point-scoring going on, but surely that basic principle is something that even he would not deny.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I would like to see every vote cast in our democratic Parliament cast by individuals who have been elected. We should all recognise, however, the widespread respect among our constituents for the spoken contributions made in the other place by Cross Benchers. Has my right hon. Friend or his Committee considered measures by which they could be allowed to stay in the House of Lords so long as the votes were the exclusive preserve of those who had been elected?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Clearly, one of the features of the proposal we are including in the draft Bill—namely, 80% elected Members and 20% appointed by an independent statutory appointments body—is that those appointed Members would sit not as party representatives but as Cross Benchers.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May I suggest to the right hon. Member that he is confusing legitimacy with accountability? Although election before one takes office might give legitimacy, it certainly does not give accountability. Accountability comes from an election after one has done things over the 15 year period. Will he reflect on that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman has some force to his argument, but one thing we were keen to preserve in the cross-party Committee was that any reform should be designed in a manner that would allow elected Members of any reformed House of Lords to retain a certain independence and even distance from party politics. A lengthy non-renewable term was seen as one way of delivering that, not only by the cross-party Committee that I chaired but by many other cross-party Committees that have considered the issue in the past.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Is it not the case that if Members of the second Chamber are elected on a constituency basis, however big those constituencies are, and members of the public disagree with what their Member of Parliament has advised them, they will inevitably turn to Members of the second Chamber? Is the Deputy Prime Minister not therefore setting up a conflict that members of the public do not want to see?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, as I said earlier, this House will have the final say—that will remain. Secondly, I think there is a world of difference between the number of people whom we all represent as Members of this House and the hundreds of thousands who would be represented by individual elected Members in any reformed House of Lords. That would be clearly understood by the public as providing a much greater and more direct mandate to those of us in this House than to those elected to the other House.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he has had discussions with Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, on Lords reform? Given the wonderful and historic scenes we have seen with our Queen in Dublin this afternoon, should not this Parliament also catch up with the modern world and ensure that in a democracy all Chambers try to reflect the democratic wishes of the people they aim to represent?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I spoke to the First Minister earlier today and explained to him in considerable detail what we are proposing, and we are both agreed that we will continue those discussions in the near future.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I broadly welcome the proposals to elect our second Chamber and I shall certainly be supporting them. We have had some assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister on the incredibly long term in office of 15 years. Two weeks ago, the people of Brigg and Goole on the same day kicked out their Labour council and replaced it with a Conservative council, and voted by a margin of about 70% to reject a change in the electoral system. Is the electoral system also up for discussion along with the multi-Member constituencies? Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least listen to us on that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, in the draft Bill we have proposed one system—the single transferable vote—primarily because it seems to be the system that gives the fullest individual mandate to elected Members rather than casting them in a party political light. It is the individual independence of spirit in the other place that everyone agrees should be preserved, but there are alternatives. In the White Paper—I know that Opposition Members feel particularly strongly about this—there is the alternative of a party list system, which we have said is available to us, as explained in the White Paper. If that is where the debate takes us, we are very open to those alternatives.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister share the views of his hon. Friend the Liberal Democrat president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), that Members elected in a different Chamber by STV will have greater legitimacy than Members of this House? Does he still believe that Members elected in another Chamber will be banned from then standing for election to this Chamber, and is that concordant with the Human Rights Act 1998?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We have looked into the latter point and it is consistent with the Human Rights Act. The draft Bill envisages—this enjoyed cross-party support on the Committee I chaired—that someone from the other place would not be able to stand for election to this place unless they had completed a cooling-off period of one term. Clearly, we do not want to transform the other place into a sort of launch pad for people’s careers in this place. The reverse, however, would not be the case.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Surely the answer to the points made by the hon. Members for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is that the two archbishops and 10 senior diocesan bishops will bring to a reformed House of Lords considerable wisdom and expertise. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) about diversity, I hope that by 2015 the House will have had the opportunity of voting to legislate for the appointment of women bishops.
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is a very important point, which shows that there is a chance of reform on several fronts, not just one.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister speaks of supernumerary appointments—a rather complex word. Could it not be interpreted as unelected appointments by a Government who might even be tempted to pack the Lords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I specified earlier, all we are envisaging is that if future Prime Ministers wish to appoint Ministers, they must make sure that those Ministers are for the duration of their ministerial office held to account by either this place or the other place, and that one way of achieving that objective, which is to enhance and strengthen the accountability of the Executive to the legislature, is to allow Prime Ministers in a small number of cases to appoint Ministers on a supernumerary basis for a temporary period during the time that they hold ministerial office.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
A reform of the House of Lords is undoubtedly needed, but this is not a reform measure. It contemplates the abolition of the House of Lords and, with that, reduced diversity and reduced expertise in our public life. Why did not the Deputy Prime Minister use this opportunity genuinely to reform the House of Lords by adopting the Bill of the noble Lord Steel, which would remedy many of the deficits that currently exist?
The Deputy Prime Minister
In many respects the provisions of Lord Steel’s Bill are in part covered by the proposals that we are putting forward. For instance, one of the central planks of his Bill is that there should be an independent statutory appointments commission. That is exactly what is envisaged in this Bill. Another part of Lord Steel’s Bill provides for retirement of existing Members of the House of Lords. That has been taken up by the Leader of the Lords already. I do not think the ideas in Lord Steel’s Bill are incompatible with the longer-term reforms that we are proposing today.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
How can someone elected for 15 years be democratically accountable if they cannot stand for election again?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, every time that has been looked at on a cross-party basis, the conclusion has been reached that in order to entrench rather than undermine the difference between the other place and this House, it is best to do so by giving any elected Members of a reformed House of Lords a long, non-renewable term so that they are not subject to the normal short-term temptations of party politics, to which some of us might be subject in this place.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
May I remind the Deputy Prime Minister and the House that the Japanese recently reformed their upper House from an appointed House to an elected House? That led to a huge loss of talent, a situation where the upper House has a complete veto over most legislation of the lower elected House, and legislative stalemate. Would we not be very foolish to embark on these reforms?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, I do not accept the principal assertion that if someone has the audacity to stand for election, somehow they do not have talent. That conclusion would not be favourable to anyone in the House. The assumption that wisdom and expertise can be possessed only by those who have not subjected themselves to election is an assumption that I have always found curious. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to what happened in Japan, but he should look at bicameral systems across the democratic world that manage a relationship between one Chamber and the other perfectly well, even though there is election to both.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
It is obviously right for a Government to proceed on a basis of consensus, given that this is a major constitutional change and all three parties supported it in their last manifestos, as the Deputy Prime Minister rightly pointed out. I hope that across the House Members will do their best, when scrutinising the Bill, to ensure that it becomes law so that the next elections can take place in 2015, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Does he agree that although it is important to proceed on the basis of consensus, there is also a danger that proceeding on too much consensus could lead to the lowest common denominator and a Bill being introduced that no one supports? There is already a danger that it will offend people who want a fully elected House and offend everybody who is not a member of the Church of England. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the lessons of the AV referendum is that if people compromise too far, no one agrees with them and their proposals do not get anywhere?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course we need to get the balance right in seeking to get as much support for these measures as possible. Hon. Members should remember that what we have published today was preceded by several meetings of a cross-party committee where although there was not consensus on everything, there was a considerable degree of consensus. I pay tribute to Members on the Opposition Front Bench who played an active and constructive role in that, but as I said in my opening statement, this is a Government measure and the Government are determined to act.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Like my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I broadly welcome the proposals, which seem to be a natural extension of the democratic process. However, it is important that electors identify with their representatives and the area they represent. People generally do not identify with the English regions. I urge the Government to rule out election by regions and consider election by our historic counties.
The Deputy Prime Minister
We had precisely that discussion in the cross-party committee and, for the exact reason the hon. Gentleman sets out, we believe that the best basis on which to proceed—we will remit the exact details to an independent panel of academics and experts—is to have clusters of counties, because they are, quite literally, a familiar territory and a familiar landscape for millions of voters up and down the country and should be the building blocks of the large constituencies or districts that elected members of a reformed House of Lords would represent.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, but given that a poll released today shows that 74% of people are against unelected bishops having a place in our legislature, including 70% of Christians, and given that expertise and wisdom are not the monopoly of any one religion, will he look again at that aspect of the reform?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I hear the hon. Lady’s strength of feeling on the issue and respect it, but the fact is that we have an established Church, which has always been reflected in its representation in the House of Lords. As I said earlier, leaders of other denominations are very supportive of some form of continuation of that representation, even though it will be on a much smaller scale than is presently the case.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues who wish to speak, so I reiterate the merits of economy and self-restraint.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was a Member of the European Parliament, which moved from being an appointed body to an elected one and, over time, has demanded more and more powers, reflecting its democratic mandate. He is very consistent in saying that that will not happen in the case of a reformed House of Lords, but how can he build in some assurances to that effect?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Those powers of the European Parliament were ultimately changed because of a negotiation between it and national Governments. The conclusion we have reached, and which several other committees and cross-party commissions that have looked at this in the past have also reached, is that the way to avoid opening that Pandora’s box is simply by asserting that the balance of power will remain as it is and as reflected in the Parliament Acts. That is exactly what we are proposing.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Prime Minister has clearly had a difficult few weeks. May I give him some advice? I suggest that when he leaves the House today he speeds to the airport and gets a plane first to Sweden and then to New Zealand so that he can see how effective unicameral Parliaments work, and then he can come back with a different proposal.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should come forward with a proposal to abolish the other place altogether.
The Deputy Prime Minister
That would probably meet an even more noisy reception than the balanced package that we have put forward today.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Would my right hon. Friend like to state clearly for the House what he believes the primary purpose of the second Chamber to be? Following the previous question, if the second Chamber did not exist, would he seek to create one?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The House of Lords now, and a reformed House of Lords in the future, would fulfil its task of review and scrutiny of Government business and Government legislation. I am not a unicameralist, although a good case can be made for it and, as was mentioned earlier, there are plenty of mature democracies that have only one Chamber. However, I believe that the checks and balances in a mature democracy are best met by two chambers.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It will seem very strange in the 21st century for only one faith and one Church to be represented in the reformed House of Lords, bearing in mind that that Church represents only England and not Scotland and the other nations of the UK. Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the national Church of Scotland and other churches and faiths being included in some way, which I think is very important?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I sought to answer those concerns earlier. What we are trying to do—it is not an easy balance to strike—is to introduce reform while maintaining a certain degree of continuity with where we have come from. That is why we arrived at the decision—I stress again that it was arrived at on a cross-party basis in the Committee that I chaired—that it was best to leave things broadly as they are but, as I have said, on a much smaller scale: 12 representatives in future, rather than 26.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
How can those elected to the other place remain, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister, “one step removed from…day to day party politics”, when every third election Members of the second Chamber will compete for votes with all of us in our constituencies?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is a rather good argument for the case, which was criticised earlier, of non-renewable terms: such Members will not stand again or, of course, in the same constituencies. We will have constituencies—certainly, after the boundaries are changed—where each of us represents just over 70,000-odd; they will seek to represent half a million-odd. It will be a completely different contest, held on a different mandate, under a different system, for a different term, and I believe that millions of British voters will be easily able to distinguish between one and the other and to keep the two separate in their own minds.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I think that this is the wrong priority at the wrong time, but if the Deputy Prime Minister is confident that we need another constitutional adventure, why does he not test whether that is the will of the House?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The final Bill, which we will bring forward after it has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, will come to this House for a vote.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman says “now”, but we have been criticised in the past for pushing forward with changes too quickly and not subjecting them to sufficient scrutiny. What we are doing now is moving very deliberately, very methodically and as consensually as possible, presenting a Bill with our best guess of what would work legislatively; keeping the options on some key issues open in the White Paper; and then inviting a cross-party Joint Committee to subject that to full scrutiny in the months ahead. I do not think that we can be criticised either for moving too fast or for seeking to escape from proper scrutiny.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hereditary principle is wrong in principle? Whatever comes out of these reforms, will he ensure that people do not take part in the democratic process as a right of birth, and that people should be either elected or appointed to that Chamber?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is exactly what we propose: that either by election or appointment, but not by heredity, people will be represented in a reformed House of Lords.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
As someone who wishes the Deputy Prime Minister well in this effort, may I ask him, first, why he believes that the Parliament Act, which, unlike the written constitutions that other bicameral countries have, is not entrenched, will prevent conflict between this House and the other place? Secondly, what are his specific proposals to reduce the risk of conflict between Members who are elected for the same territory? Has he looked at non-geographic constituencies for the other place?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The idea proposed in the Bill—again, I really should stress that this is not some sort of new idea but a repetition and a re-presentation of an idea that many people have proposed in the past—is that the geographical mandates are so different that any meaningful overlap cannot really occur. The hon. Lady refers to the Parliament Act, but the Parliament Acts are there to resolve conflicts where they become firmly entrenched, and we believe that the provisions of the Parliament Acts should remain in place.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I just want a little further clarification on a question that one of my hon. Friends raised. Is it intended that elections to the new House of Lords will coincide with general elections? What will happen if the date of a general election drops out of the five-year cycle?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, the idea is that they should be held on the same day if, for exceptional reasons, there were to be a change in the fixed rhythm that we are seeking to enshrine in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. We have set out provisions in the Bill and the White Paper to ensure that there is at least a minimum period during which elected Members of a reformed House of Lords could continue to serve.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): Constitutional reform is not a priority of my constituents; they showed that, not least, in the AV referendum result recently, as did many others. I wonder why the Deputy Prime Minister is so keen to keep appointed Members of the new Chamber. Is it perhaps because he knows that it is the only way of getting Lib Dems elected back into Parliament after the next election?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is a rather tired point to make at this stage of the debate. I agree that it is not a priority, but the hon. Gentleman none the less made a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote and, indeed, to reform of the House of Lords. He shakes his head, but let me read out to him this commitment from the Labour manifesto:
“At the end of the next Parliament one third of the House of Lords will be elected; a further one third of members will be elected at the general election after that. Until the final stage, the representation of all groups should be maintained in equal proportions to now.”
We are introducing that idea of making changes by thirds in the draft legislation that we have proposed. I hope that he would welcome that instead of trying to make somewhat feeble political points.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): With a democratic Chamber having been endorsed in all three major political parties’ manifestos, and indeed appearing in the coalition agreement, what reassurance can the Deputy Prime Minister give to this House that he will do everything he possibly can and use every possible mechanism to ensure that we have the first elections to the second Chamber in 2015?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I have sought to explain that we are determined to act to ensure that the first elections to a reformed House of Lords take place in 2015, but not for want of trying to create genuine cross-party consensus on the way to proceed. That is why we held the meetings of the cross-party committee and why we are putting the Bill and the White Paper out to the wider scrutiny of a Joint Committee. There is ample opportunity for everyone to make their contributions, but, as he rightly implies, at the end of the day this Government must act and will act.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): As the Deputy Prime Minister headed off towards the high savannah with his bag of fudge, was he at all worried by the sound of tumbleweed blowing behind him as he spoke? Why did he not have the guts to go for a proposal that I believe in, and that he really believes in, which is a 100% elected second Chamber with no prime ministerial cronies and no assisted places scheme for Anglican bishops?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course there is a compelling case, for which I have argued for a very long time, for a fully elected House of Lords. However, anyone who takes even a cursory look at the unhappy history of attempts to reform the House of Lords will conclude that one of the great problems occurred when people reached too far and made the best the enemy of the good. It would be much easier to take seriously the hon. Gentleman’s rather pious admonitions in favour of 100% if he had delivered more than 0% of elections in the 13 years when his party was in power.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome the broad thrust of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, the draft Bill and the White Paper, but ask politely whether the only 80:20 split that is of any significance to the success of this legislation is the 80:20 split on the Benches behind him, with 80% against his proposals and 20% in favour.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, all the parties’ manifestos are committed to reform of the House of Lords. They differ slightly, but they are all based on the simple principle that there would be a stronger, better, more legitimate Chamber doing its work on behalf of the British people more effectively if there were greater democratic accountability—and that is exactly what we are proposing. However, I acknowledge that the debate should now continue by way of the Joint Committee.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Given that recent events demonstrate that the British people want to retain first past the post, why is the Deputy Prime Minister insistent that the second Chamber will not be elected under that system? Could it be because it is in his party’s interests?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No. It really is worth looking at the history of the cross-party commissions and Committees that have considered this matter in the past, which by the way have been chaired by politicians from all the major parties. Almost all of them came to the conclusion that if we want to retain the precious difference between one House and the other, it should be reflected in a different electoral system.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
How sustainable does the Deputy Prime Minister believe it is to create a hybrid Chamber with two classes of Member, one in five of whom will be present without the approval of the electorate? Would it not be much more sensible and durable to create an entirely elected second Chamber?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, I have a lot of sympathy in principle with the argument for a wholly elected Chamber. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because there is not much experience to support his case. Holyrood shows that elected representatives who have different mandates—in this case there would be elected and appointed representatives —are none the less able to co-exist and to do a job collectively on behalf of the British people.
Fourth Carbon Budget
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
Today I am announcing that the Government propose to set an ambitious target in law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change.
Signing up to an ambitious fourth carbon budget will result in no additional costs to consumers during this Parliament. We will, however, undertake a review of progress in early 2014 to ensure that our carbon targets are in line with those of the European Union. We are working up a package of measures, to be announced by the end of the year, to help energy-intensive industries adjust to the low-carbon industrial transformation while remaining competitive.
By agreeing to the level proposed by the Committee on Climate Change, we are demonstrating our desire to drive the changes needed to turn the UK into a dynamic, low-carbon economy that is attractive to investors in the new and growing low-carbon sectors. We are also sending a clear signal to the international community that the UK is committed to the low-carbon economy. That will help us to reach agreement in Europe on moving to a 30% emissions reduction target and build momentum towards a legally binding global climate change deal.
The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. It also requires Governments to set carbon budgets, which are limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the UK for consecutive five-year periods. Carbon budgets must be set at least three budget periods in advance. They are designed to put emission reductions on an appropriate and cost-effective pathway to our 2050 target. The first three carbon budgets were set in 2009, following advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change. The fourth carbon budget, which sets the limit on emissions for the five-year period from 2023 to 2027, has to be set in law by the end of June 2011.
As advised by the Committee on Climate Change, the level that we propose setting in law would mean that net emissions over the fourth carbon budget period should not exceed 1,950 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is a 50% reduction from 1990 levels. As required by the 2008 Act, once the fourth carbon budget has been set in law, we will publish a report setting out the policies and proposals required in the medium and long term to meet the budget, building on the strong foundation provided by our existing policies. That will take the form of the revised Government carbon plan later this year, following the publication of the interim version in March.
The Committee on Climate Change advised that we should aim to meet the budget through emissions reductions in the UK, rather than by relying on carbon trading, such as under the EU emissions trading system or the purchase of international credits from projects abroad. We will aim to reduce emissions domestically as far as is practical and affordable, but we also intend to keep our carbon trading options open, to maintain maximum flexibility and minimise costs in the medium to long term. Given the uncertainty involved in looking so far ahead, that is a pragmatic approach.
Under the Climate Change Act, emissions reductions by the UK’s industrial and power sectors are determined by the UK’s share of the EU emissions trading scheme cap. That protects the UK industrial and power sectors from exceeding EU requirements. However, if the EU ETS cap is insufficiently ambitious, disproportionate strain could be placed on sectors outside the EU ETS, such as transport. To overcome that problem, and to provide clearer signals for businesses and investors, the Government will review progress towards the EU emissions goal in early 2014. If at that point our domestic commitments place us on a different trajectory from the one agreed by our partners in the EU under the ETS, we will revise up our budget as appropriate to align it with the actual EU trajectory. In line with the coalition agreement, the Government will continue to argue for an EU move to a 30% target for 2020, and for ambitious action in the 2020s.
As part of the transition to a low-carbon economy, we need to ensure that energy-intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business. Before the end of the year, we will announce a package of measures for the energy-intensive businesses whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies. Rising electricity costs pose a risk to those businesses’ sectors, which are critical to our growth agenda. We will therefore take steps to reduce the impact of Government policy on the cost of electricity for those businesses, allowing them to continue to play their part in delivering our green industrial transformation. In that way, we will ensure that those sectors remain internationally competitive and send a clear message that the UK is open for business.
It is important to stress that the UK’s existing policies already put us on track to meet the first three carbon budgets. They also provide a strong foundation for the fourth carbon budget, implying no additional near-term costs. We are reforming the electricity market, making homes and businesses more energy-efficient through the green deal, ensuring that new homes are built to a high energy efficiency standard, encouraging the uptake of ultra-low carbon cars and setting up a green investment bank.
Meeting the 1,950 million tonnes target that we propose for the 2023 to 2027 period is ambitious but achievable. By providing long-term clarity for investors, the fourth carbon budget places the UK at the leading edge of the global low-carbon industrial transformation. It will set Britain on the path to green growth, establish our competitive advantage in the most rapidly growing sectors of the world economy, generate jobs and export opportunities in those sectors, maintain energy security and protect our economy from oil price volatility. It is a framework not just for action on climate but for growth and prosperity.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement this afternoon. May I make it very clear that we welcome the fact that the Government have finally made a decision on the fourth carbon budget? We know that it has been a rocky week for him, as his colleague the Business Secretary sought a very different decision on this issue. We also know the many battles that he has lost within Government on the green agenda, so I congratulate him on this progress. I welcome the fact that he has not, after all, ducked the chance to answer questions on this important matter and is here before the House today.
I need to pick up on a point that the right hon. Gentleman made. He talked about our being on track to meet the first three carbon budgets, but I do not really think that is thanks to the current Government. We have seen a go-slow from him on green progress. Can he reassure us that he, the Treasury and the Business Secretary are united in delivering on these challenging targets? Can he be sure that he at least has the support of the Prime Minister?
The importance of this decision cannot be overstated, and I shall not repeat what the Secretary of State clearly laid out on the rationale behind the Climate Change Act 2008, which was established under the previous Government. However, I am puzzled about the 2014 review that he announced, because it introduces new uncertainty for those investing in the country’s greener future and breaks with the five-year cycle. He has already failed to provide business certainty by delaying the green investment bank and pulling the rug from underneath the solar industry. It is therefore essential that the scope of that review is clarified so that it does not do the same.
With those budgets now agreed, the Government must deliver on policies to meet them. As I have said, we have seen over the course of this year the Government failing to deliver on their green promises. The long-awaited green investment bank is unable to borrow till 2015—no rush there!—and it is the subject of yet more disagreements. Confidence in the renewables sector was shaken by a hasty and ill-conceived revision of the feed-in tariff, and of course, the commitment to zero-carbon homes was scrapped with no notice.
The right hon. Gentleman’s confidence in his record belies the facts. He needs to focus on his Department and on the detail of this agenda, which is very important to the future not just of the UK, but of the world. For the UK to meet those targets, we need a clear plan from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a strong foundation, which we need, but he needs to get real and to deliver on that.
We cannot meet our targets without a major reduction in domestic emissions. It is therefore critical that the Government make the improvements to the Energy Bill that the Opposition have demanded. Most importantly, they need to be clear on what carbon reductions the green deal will deliver, which, as we said last week, cannot be left to the market to decide.
Policy needs to be joined-up if we are to have the green industrial revolution that this country needs. We are clear that there is cross-party agreement on the carbon-reduction trajectory, but I should like to ask a few detailed questions of the Secretary of State. What will be the purpose and scope of the 2014 review, which I have already highlighted? Is there a prospect that the Government will weaken the targets that he announced today, or is he suggesting that they can only be tightened? What are the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills doing to support energy-intensive industries? When will he have more detail on that? He alluded to that, but we need more detail.
Will the Government introduce clearer aims for the green deal, so that we can be clear on how it will contribute to the necessary emissions reductions? When will we see the national policy statements, including on nuclear? Will that happen before the summer? When will the revised carbon plan be published? Will the Secretary of State and his Department consult widely on that?
After scrapping the grant funding for wave and tidal—we still await the renewables obligation certificates review—how will the UK gain a competitive edge in wave and tidal energy, in which we should be groundbreaking? Will the Secretary of State introduce an accelerated timetable for the trial and deployment of industrial-scale carbon capture and storage for coal and gas?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Committee on Climate Change that we need to be more explicit in our support for new nuclear and onshore wind? Finally, what plans do the Government have for introducing road pricing, as suggested by the Committee? Has he consulted the Transport Secretary? Is that a policy for the next Parliament, or is there an urgent need to legislate for vehicle use now?
Chris Huhne
Perhaps I would be forgiven for wondering whether the hon. Lady and I have been living in the same country for the past few years. Given the picture that she is painting of policies that have been put in place to deliver on carbon budgets, she should perhaps remember that our inheritance after 13 years of the previous Labour Government is that our renewable sector is 25th out of 27 EU member states. That is not a record of which the hon. Lady can be proud. As for efforts to be made, for example, on energy efficiency, it took this Government to introduce the Energy Bill, which legislates for the green deal, which is the most comprehensive attempt to deal with energy saving in future.
Since the hon. Lady asked, I can assure her that the carbon budget has been approved unanimously by the Cabinet and has the support of the Business Secretary, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. It is an important commitment by the Government, because it is the first commitment beyond the period for which the EU has legislated. Unlike the previous Labour Government’s three carbon budgets, this one goes beyond what the EU requires of us. We have set it according to our own domestic legislative framework and with our own domestic legislative agenda.
The 2014 review will be simple and clear. On the traded sector, which is crucial to our international competitiveness, we will review what is happening in the rest of the EU, because it is appropriate that we move at the same pace as the sector there. The hon. Lady mentioned that the green investment bank can borrow in 2015, which is crucial because the second part of this decade will see the greatest need for borrowing powers to ensure the installation of renewable and other low-carbon energy. I am astonished by her description of what has happened so far under this Government. We have set aside more than £800 million for a renewable heat incentive, and we are legislating for a carbon price floor.
Despite the Opposition’s warm words, in 13 years of a Labour Government not a single piece of turf was turned in order to install a single new nuclear reactor, yet work has already begun at Hinkley Point. The sense of urgency in dealing with the climate change challenge displayed by this Government is of an entirely different order of magnitude. On clean coal and gas, about which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and some of his friends are particularly concerned, the Government, in an extremely tough and difficult expenditure round in which we have to clear up the mess inherited from the Labour party, found £1 billion to set aside for the first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage project. In 13 years under Labour, no money was put aside and no planning was done for low-carbon growth.
We will proceed with our national planning statements, and there will be an interim review by the nuclear regulator, Mike Weightman, which I anticipate coming shortly. The hon. Lady asked a detailed question about road pricing. We have made it clear already that there will be no plans for that in this Parliament. I repeat, however, that we are set on a road that will unlock enormous opportunities for British business, with a low-carbon economy and high growth.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I ask hon. Members to respect the convention that they do not question the Secretary of State if they were not here for the entirety of his statement.
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
This is a most welcome decision by the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are considerable potential economic advantages for Britain in leading the world towards a lower carbon economy? Does he further agree that, although it is understandable that the Government should wish to retain the option of purchasing credits in order to achieve the target, the sooner that option is ruled out, the greater the incentive will be for British business to invest in low-carbon technology?
Chris Huhne
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, who has made a powerful case in the past for a low-carbon economy. This is no longer a set of cottage industries. We are talking about a sector of the British economy that employs 910,000 people, which is growing extremely rapidly in a major world market, and which offers us enormous opportunities. I have no doubt that to those who move first and furthest will come the great advantages of the low-carbon economy. On the point about purchasing credits, having in a misspent youth practised economic forecasting and knowing about the difficulties of getting forecasts right one or two years in advance, I think it makes pragmatic sense to preserve a little flexibility when looking ahead as far as 2023-27.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
We are on track to meet our first three carbon budgets because of the policies put in place and pioneered by the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman is yet to deliver on any of his flagship policies. When he speaks of renewables, does he not have some concern about the Ernst and Young report showing that only 13% of UK-based corporates, financiers and clean-tech companies believe that the coalition will create an environmental success this year?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. She has followed this area for many years and has enormous expertise in it. However, if she is going to claim the credit for meeting the current carbon budget on the back of the previous Government’s record, she should be aware that an important contributor to the 28% reduction in our carbon emissions since 1990 has been the depth of the recession. I am glad that she is at last owning up to the impact that those on the Opposition Benches had on our economy. On the Ernst and Young report, we are determined to set a framework that provides certainty and clarity for investors, and we will do so particularly with the electricity market reform that we shall be announcing later.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
How exactly does the Secretary of State propose to ensure that the glass and ceramics, and steel and chemicals industries, which are high energy users, are not damaged by the taxes and regulations that he is proposing today?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The energy-intensive work group that we have set up between my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will come forward with a set of measures by the end of the year. That is a clear commitment. As he knows, there are a number of ways to help energy-intensive industries, including the free allocation of units under the EU emissions trading scheme and encouraging a move towards the use of biomass and biofuels, for example. We are looking at all those measures to ensure that we can balance the concerns of the energy-intensive industries as well as make substantial progress towards the low-carbon economy.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
The climate change targets that the last Parliament legislated for were arguably the most ambitious thing that any Parliament in this country has ever legislated for. I certainly welcome the broad thrust of the coalition Government’s proposals today, even if the Secretary of State failed to understand that turning over turf during his term of office depended on four years of preparatory work, which I am happy to discuss with him.
Many of the goods that we consume in Britain used to be manufactured in Britain. They are now manufactured in places such as China, thereby producing carbon emissions, and then imported into this country. Those carbon emissions in China and elsewhere occur only because of demand from western societies such as ours. Given that we are talking about a global phenomenon, does the Secretary of State have any ideas for how Europe as a whole can use its influence to bring about appropriate carbon reduction policies in places such as China, India and elsewhere?
Chris Huhne
The right hon. Gentleman’s question is an interesting one, as I would expect, given his background as an Energy Minister and his expertise in this field. Wherever one goes in the world, people will say that everyone else is working much less hard on the low-carbon agenda than they are. That is the prevailing myth. I was recently speaking to my counterpart in Australia, who said that the entire debate there is about how only the Australians are dealing with climate change and no one else is. The reality is that enormous progress is being made on this agenda right across the board, including in India and China. The five-year plan that the Chinese have just established is enormously ambitious. Six of the largest renewables companies in the world are now Chinese. The Chinese are making an enormous commitment to offshore wind, as well as in more conventional sectors such as nuclear. They are now the dominant player in solar photovoltaics, having taken the lead from Germany, so I simply do not accept that this is a world where we are moving ahead of other people. We are moving ahead together, but it will be the people who move furthest and fastest who get the best prizes.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he publishes the plan in the next couple of months, it will include an industrial plan that supports the green economy, not only in the energy sector but right across the manufacturing sector in areas such as white goods manufacturing and the production of electric cars? Will he also ensure that his Department and BIS provide the support to ensure that we have all the necessary skills and investment?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know that it is a heartfelt one because of her commitments to her constituency. I remember her being present when I opened the wind farm off Thanet. There will be enormous opportunities as a result of our proposals. We set aside £60 million for port transformation in the comprehensive spending review, for example, and we now have some substantial commitments of interest, including from Mitsubishi in Scotland, from GE and from Siemens in Humberside. Vestas is also talking about an area close to my hon. Friend’s constituency in Kent. I believe that we will see an enormous amount of investment in those crucial industries. Our carbon plan will focus on meeting our carbon objectives, but the work that BIS, in particular, is doing to lead the charge for the carbon economy is very important, and I am backing it completely.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on stepping up to the plate on this issue; it is really good that he has established that it is he, and not the Business Secretary, who is in the driving seat. I want to ask him about long-term clarity for investors. He mentioned that that was key, but he will appreciate that those wishing to invest in gas now risk seeing their investments stranded after 2025. It is extremely important, when addressing that question, that he review the proposals on electricity market reform to ensure that those investments can be maintained.
Chris Huhne
We have every intention of ensuring security of supply, and gas will perform an important role in that regard, in the short run and in the medium run. Given the worldwide potential for the exploitation of unconventional gas from shale and other formations, it might well be the case that gas will play a long-term part in our energy mix as well, through clean coal and gas, and carbon capture and storage. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, however, and we will not have stranded assets of the kind he describes. We will be introducing our proposals in the White Paper on electricity market reform.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement to the House today, and his commitment to ensuring that the UK will be the first country in Europe to have legally binding emissions targets beyond 2020. Further to the point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), what can his Department do to ensure that the green growth industries are able to take full advantage of the opportunities that this statement and the Government’s policy will provide?
Chris Huhne
We are determined that there should be enormous growth opportunities for low-carbon goods and services in the UK, and I would like to highlight two things that our Department can deliver. The first is the certainty required to enable investment in the replacement of ageing power plant that we will need over the next 10 years. Ofgem has estimated a figure of £200 billion, which is roughly double the normal level of investment in the UK, so this will be important in powering the recovery over the next few years. The second is the provisions in the Energy Bill, the Second Reading of which took place last week. The green deal, which is set out in the Bill, will provide the opportunity for an enormous number of new jobs. We calculate that we will move up from the present figure of 27,000 jobs in the insulation sector to 100,000 by 2015 and that, at its peak, the policy will result in 250,000 jobs right across the industry, which will have to retrofit every home in the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the enormous job-creating potential for these industries, and we will keep that matter very much in the forefront of our minds.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on coming out on the right side of the scrap in Cabinet over the fourth carbon budget. Does he accept, however, that according to the Climate Change Act 2008, a fourth carbon budget with a review in 2014 will not really be a fourth carbon budget in law? Can he confirm that a review in 2014 would not change the law as far as the fourth carbon budget was concerned? If that is the case, why should there be a review?
Chris Huhne
The key point of having a review is to make sure that in the tradeable sector, where we have industries exposed to international competition—and we want them to thrive—industries are not exposed to unique costs that will not be imposed on the competition in the EU. That is what the review is designed to achieve. Under the Act, any review will have to be preceded by a recommendation from the Climate Change Commission—and we have absolutely no plans to change that, so it will depend on recommendations from that commission.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s ambitious announcement. I remind him that in evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, Lord Turner said that our carbon targets might lead to an appreciable increase in domestic energy prices. I urge the Secretary of State to roll out the green deal with all speed to ensure that any domestic energy price increase is offset by the energy saving elements of that green deal.
Chris Huhne
I can assure my hon. Friend that we in the ministerial team are absolutely committed to low-cost, affordable electricity. The last assessment the Department made—at the time of the annual energy statement, and we will make another at the next such statement—is that the overall impact of our policies, including energy saving and the effects that my hon. Friend mentioned, will add 1% to the cost of household energy bills in 2020. As it happens, that was posited on a world oil price of $80 a barrel. As he knows, the oil price has moved substantially beyond that. With oil prices and associated gas prices higher than $100 a barrel, our estimate is that our policies will save money for the British household. I am not saying that British households will not face increases in the cost of gas and electricity in future; what I am saying is that the policy mix of energy saving and low-carbon electricity generation will give a better deal to British households than would reliance on imports of variable fossil fuels from volatile parts of the world.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that purchasing carbon offsets abroad as a means of meeting carbon emission reduction targets in the UK is deeply flawed on grounds of additionality, leakage and uncertain duration and that, in any case, they do not achieve the ostensible objective of decarbonising Britain? What precise proportion of the 29% cut in carbon emissions planned between now and 2027 do the Government intend or expect to be achieved via carbon offsets?
Chris Huhne
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we intend to try to meet all the reductions we have set out from our domestic activity. That is the clear intention of setting out the fourth carbon budget as we have. However, given the enormous uncertainties of making projections so far in advance, it would not be sensible for us to rule out the flexibility afforded by carbon trading at the relevant time.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
If my right hon. Friend is going to meet these targets by reducing emissions here, it will mean reducing a lot of emissions from domestic housing. Will he give us more information about how he is going to achieve that with existing housing, and what exactly does he mean when he talks of ensuring that new homes are built to a high energy efficiency standard? What is a high energy efficiency standard in relation to zero carbon?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend knows that the lead Department on zero-carbon homes is the Department for Communities and Local Government. It has set out its thoughts on this issue. I am pleased to see that we intend to continue with the substantial improvement in energy efficiency standards in the 2013 and 2016 building regulations. On that basis, we will move quickly towards a zero-carbon homes standard, which will make a major contribution to meeting our long-term carbon reduction goals of 80% by 2050.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the Government’s acceptance of a 50% emissions cut by 2025, but like others I am deeply concerned that behind a headline that looks so good in theory is something that risks being a sham. In reality, a significant proportion of the reduction will be happening in other countries. What impact does the Secretary of State expect that to have on the “green industrial transformation” that he says that he wants? Such a transformation will not happen if we pay other countries to do the work for us.
Chris Huhne
I can add very little to what I have already said to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). We are, in fact, dealing with a period that is very far off—well beyond the normal range of economic forecasting—and it is sensible for us to exercise a measure of flexibility in the way in which we achieve our aim. However, I can assure the hon. Lady—as I assured the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton—that we intend to meet this budget from our domestic activity. That is absolutely in line with everything that I have said about encouraging low-carbon goods and services.
The hon. Lady should also bear in mind that even the flexibility that is afforded by trading will be limited by the existence or otherwise of far cheaper opportunities to ameliorate the position by mitigating carbon emissions outside the country rather than inside it. I believe that the more we invest in the industries that I have mentioned, and the more “learning by doing” that we do, the greater will be the chance of our meeting our targets entirely from domestic activity, which is what we intend to do.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I strongly welcome the statement. What contribution does the Secretary of State think demand-side measures are likely to make in a reformed electricity market, particularly given the focus on negawatts?
Chris Huhne
The concept of negawatts is very important. Let me explain to those who have not followed the debate that it means we should be able to trade into the electricity system savings in energy and not merely electricity generation. That concept is part of the consultation that we are currently considering about electricity market reform, and I believe that it will be a crucial part of our reform proposals. There are several different aspects, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed when he sees the results.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
The proposals on climate change are extremely important. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that they will receive his full attention over the coming days and weeks?
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The strategy announced today contains a “ripcord”: the targets will be reviewed in 2014 if they prove to be more aggressive than those of our European Union partners. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be important to energy-intensive industries in Britain which are themselves important to our future prosperity and the creation of jobs?
Chris Huhne
I do. I noted the criticism from Opposition Members, and I refer them to a bit of socialist history. The attempt to build socialism in one country under Joe Stalin was not an unalloyed success, and, similarly, an attempt to build climate change policies in one country would not be an unalloyed success. We must keep a weather eye on the competitiveness of our industries and on what is going on overseas, but we have set a very clear direction. We will be ambitious in our climate change goals, and I am determined for us to drive the growth of these new opportunities and industries as a result.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has led the House to believe that a review of progress early in 2014 was intended to ensure that the emissions trading system trajectory agreed by the EU could be revised up. Can he rule out the possibility that those ambitious targets will be revised down?
Chris Huhne
Were our EU partners to move even further and faster than we are currently suggesting, we might indeed see revision in the other direction, but I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts as much as I do that the chances of that happening appear to be remote at the moment. I think that we are making progress with our aim to achieve a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. A number of other countries have joined us in the call for that, including, recently, Denmark, Sweden and Spain, and I am confident that we will make further progress among our partners in the months to come.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Businesses in my part of west Yorkshire are already playing a major part in the green economy. David Brown Engineering in Lockwood make the gears for offshore wind turbines and is very appreciative of a £2 million investment from the regional growth fund for a research centre there; TEV Ltd in Brighouse is investing in air source heat pumps; and the then Conservative-run Kirklees council introduced the warm zone scheme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we cut emissions, the number of green jobs will increase?
Chris Huhne
I certainly do. I think this presents an enormous opportunity for the future. There will be enormous numbers of jobs in energy saving and in the other low-carbon goods and services, and that will be the case right across the country. There will be no bias towards one region or another—no bias towards London and the south-east, for instance—because homes, and therefore the industrial opportunities, exist everywhere.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State has explained why he is resiling from the Committee on Climate Change advice to forgo the carbon trading option, but is he proposing to sidestep any of its other recommendations? Also, do any of his concerns for ensuring the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries and for signalling certainty to investors extend to feeling regret about the adverse impact of the Chancellor’s raid on the CRC scheme?
Chris Huhne
We have not accepted a number of the other detailed recommendations in the committee’s report, but the trading one is an obvious example. It also asked us to set a target for 2030, and we do not see the need for that. I am not a great believer in intermediate targets when we have a very clear overall carbon budget, but given our commitment to a target figure of 1,950 million tonnes for the overall carbon budget for 2023 to 2027, nobody should be in any doubt about the thrust of our policy or our determination to meet our target. I have a very strong preference for achieving what we are actually trying to do, which is to cut carbon emissions, rather than for setting a whole group of intermediate targets, but that we will do.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to accept the independent committee’s advice. Further to the question I asked my right hon. Friend on Second Reading of the Energy Bill, can he confirm that the Government report setting out the policies and proposals required to meet the budget will include an assessment of the contribution each will make so that the House can assess the value for money that they offer?
Chris Huhne
I am concerned to ensure that all our policies offer real value for money. I believe the only way we will be able to hold public consensus behind what is a very ambitious programme of industrial change is if we show we are really ensuring that we get value for taxpayers in each policy we pursue. That is why we had to take the decision we took on solar feed-in tariffs. Although everything was unchanged below two tennis courts-worth, we have had to review the solar tariffs for the larger scale solar because we are determined to get good value for money. That is crucial. I also take on board the fact that the OECD’s latest country report urged us to look at the different implicit carbon prices in our policies across the board. I very much take that to heart and we will look at it. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that we will address value for money, and that it is foremost among our considerations in delivering good policy.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Energy Secretary believe that it would help to achieve his carbon targets if the speed limit for cars were lowered, or does he think the speed limit for cars should be raised, as do the Transport Secretary and, presumably, the Energy Secretary’s wife?
Chris Huhne
The Transport Secretary has responsibility for these matters, and it is well above my pay grade.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the Government’s ambition in this area. Given the critical role local authorities must surely play in delivering their goals, how does the Secretary of State intend to help local councils do their bit?
Chris Huhne
The most important way in which this Government can help local councils be innovative, creative and imaginative is to get away from telling them what to do from Westminster. We must remove ring-fencing and make sure local councils can take responsibility for their own decisions. As my hon. Friend knows, we have some robust debates about the priorities between different levels of government in Hampshire, and that is as it should be. Those priorities are determined by the councils—whether the county council at Winchester by the Conservatives, or the district council at Eastleigh by the Liberal Democrats. They make different decisions and it is proper that they should then be accountable to local people for those decisions.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I, too, am pleased that we got a statement on this today, but I am anxious about the future and viability of energy-intensive industries, such as those in my constituency which have been the backbone of the north-east England economy. They have done much to reduce emissions already, but what will the Government do to help with transition funding, possibly through the growth fund or other mechanisms, to ensure that such industries can make further change and develop in the future?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the growth fund, which is having a tremendous impact in bringing in a vast amount of private investment where it would not otherwise have been occurring; that is definitely a tremendous innovation. In addition, we are and will be developing the package for the energy-intensive industries, which I mentioned earlier. That is being done with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and it will be coming forward by the end of the year. We want balanced growth so that all parts of the economy can benefit from a robust economy.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I, too, wish to add my thanks to the Government and welcome the steps being taken to move to a low-carbon economy. It is also encouraging to see the great work being done by community groups, particularly Macclesfield Transition Town and Food4Macc in my area, to support these ambitions. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to engage these community groups in helping to achieve these very important targets?
Chris Huhne
We are keen to engage community groups; the ministerial team does a lot of visits and makes sure that we are talking to members of civil society and, of course, to non-governmental organisations, which have an important influence on community groups. This is also particularly crucial in an area that I know can be controversial, even among those on the Government Benches: proposals for onshore wind. I think that that is a beautiful form of renewable energy, although I know that that opinion is not always shared across the House. It is an important part of our strategy to get community groups involved and owning these policies, and some interesting proposals have been made. For example, the biggest proposal for onshore wind is the Viking proposal for Shetland and it is half-owned by the community group that supports Shetlanders. So I am very much in favour of the sort of engagement that my hon. Friend has rightly suggested.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Given his comments today and previously, the Secretary of State is obviously keenly aware of the danger of carbon leakage, particularly if the Government proceed to reduce emissions through unilateral taxation on the energy-intensive industries. So what consideration has he given to an annual assessment of UK emissions on a consumption basis—an assessment taking into consideration imported goods—because that would act as a real incentive for us to reduce our emissions properly here in the UK?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Lady raises an important issue that people periodically talk about, which is that no matter how well we do in the UK, we are not making a difference to the world as a whole if we are merely outsourcing production of carbon-intensive goods to economies such as China. However, I would make two points in response, the first of which is that we should not underestimate the progress being made in economies such as India and China to grapple with and move very fast on this agenda. The Department and the Government are working with the low-carbon pilot areas in China and the developments are truly impressive, so I urge her to look at them. We are aware of this issue, but I do not think that any time soon we will be able to move globally towards a situation where we are taking into account the embedded carbon emissions in trade. The reality is that most of the nearly 200 countries that are members of the United Nations are fiercely protective of their own territorial sovereignty, so it seems likely that our major efforts to tackle climate change will be based on states’ control of their own territorial integrity.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on accepting the ambitious fourth carbon budget recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. His statement highlights how vital it is to increase the EU carbon emission reduction target from 20% to 30% by 2020, so how will the Government redouble their efforts to secure that agreement and, in particular, to get a significant tightening of the EU emissions trading scheme cap?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have made substantial strides in the direction of securing an agreement and a number of countries in the EU are clearly signed up to the 30% ambition level for 2020. A number of other countries would like to go beyond 20%. The European Commission is the key player and one of the points that it is making—rightly I think—is that if we as a European Union were to deliver on just the energy efficiency commitments that we have already made, we could get to a 25% cut in carbon emissions by 2020 without any additional cost. There is a lot of progress to be made on this agenda and I and my ministerial colleagues are pressing that point at all the meetings we attend in Brussels and elsewhere. I believe that we are making good progress.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
One issue for intensive energy users is the cumulative effect of Government policies on their competitiveness. Has the Minister carried out a full impact assessment of the cumulative effect of climate policies and, if not, will he commit to doing so?
Chris Huhne
The group that is considering the impact on energy-intensive industries is certainly taking into account all the impacts of policy as well as the other impacts. Obviously, some effects on energy-intensive industry have nothing to do with policy and there are some macro-economic effects, such as the relative competitiveness gained through the improvement in the real exchange rate. We will take account of all those factors when we come to conclusions about the measures necessary to help energy-intensive industries.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has mentioned on a number of occasions the increased number of jobs in the renewables sector of the economy. This March, Verso Economics produced a report for the Scottish Parliament that showed that for every job created in the renewables sector 3.7 jobs were destroyed in the rest of the economy. How does he marry that report’s conclusions with the statements he has been making?
Chris Huhne
For every report that reaches the sort of conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I can point him to other reports that suggest exactly the opposite. The OECD, which is probably the most respected and authoritative of international economic organisations, has done some very good work on green growth. We have had a very important study from Potsdam in co-ordination with a number of leading economists from Oxford and elsewhere that suggests that there are positive growth effects through investment and learning by doing. Recently, I received a very important note from Professor Nick Stern—Lord Stern—arguing that the attempts to see his report as imposing costs on the economy were simply mistaken. He feels very strongly that the move to low-carbon goods and services involves enormous opportunities and that the increase in investment involved can help to power us out of an exceptionally deep recession. That is perhaps a long answer to show that when two economists are in a room, there are sometimes three opinions. None the less, the balance of argument is very much against the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has made a number of points this afternoon, but one point that came out of the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change was that international aviation and shipping should be included in future carbon budgets. Does he agree with that recommendation?
Chris Huhne
It is certainly one thing that we intend to consider. It is important, but there are obviously technical issues to be resolved and discussions are ongoing within Government. When we reach a conclusion, we will make an announcement.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
This issue should transcend party politics, but I regret to say that some of the Secretary of State’s actions do not live up to his rhetoric. This morning, I met representatives from East Midlands airport whose ambition is to make its ground operations carbon-neutral. The plan was to provide 36% of the airport’s energy requirements through a major photovoltaic scheme that has now been made unviable as a result of the wholesale butchery of feed-in tariffs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has abandoned photovoltaic cells as a way of generating energy and what advice can he give to East Midlands airport about its ambition to deliver a carbon-neutral target?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman should perhaps be aware that the intention of the feed-in tariff scheme was to encourage microgeneration. Any proposal that involves less than two tennis courts-worth of solar photovoltaic cells will be completely unchanged by the review that we have announced, so he is clearly referring to a scheme that is very much bigger than that. All I would say is that we have to look at value for money. I am surprised that Opposition Members think that that is a revolutionary concept but it is important to consider value for money. If we had not announced the review, we would have found that a very large part of some of our finest shire counties would, instead of disappearing under oil seed rape or some more conventional crop, have been disappearing under solar photovoltaics. That was not, I am sure, the intention of the Opposition. It certainly is not our intention and that is why we have acted.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept the commission’s finding about seeking a reduction of 44% in emissions from surface transport by 2030 in comparison with the figures for 2008? If he does, will he make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport to put right the cuts in the budgets for electric-powered and hybrid vehicles that were made in the spending review, which put the long-term viability of those industries at risk?
Chris Huhne
I do not think that the policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has introduced can be characterised in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We recently did some calculations that suggested that, given the prices we have at the petrol pump today, it makes sense to buy an electric vehicle because of the subsidies that the Secretary of State for Transport has announced in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I believe that the framework has been set for very rapid growth in this area and I am confident that that is what we will see.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
As the continuing and intensifying nightmare of Fukushima has undermined the public’s confidence in nuclear, and because no nuclear power station, old or new, has ever been built on budget, on time or without public subsidy, does the Secretary of State still persist in his belief that nuclear power stations can be built here without public subsidy? If so, will he explain who will pay the billions in insurance and compensation if a major incident occurs? Will it be the industry or, as in Japan now, the taxpayer?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman has a long track record of concern on this subject, which I respect. Some of the answers to his questions will be there when we see the interim and then the final report from the chief nuclear inspector, Mike Weightman. I hope that we can bring that forward very rapidly and then the hon. Gentleman will be able to see for himself. He is right in one respect, on which I entirely agree with him: if there is to be, as the nuclear industry hopes, a nuclear renaissance, it is absolutely crucial that the nuclear industry shows that it can deliver on time and to budget. Investors will not come forward on a repeated basis if that is not the case.
I can certainly confirm that we will not be providing public subsidy to nuclear and that we see nuclear as part of the energy mix for the future provided that safety concerns are met—we have the Mike Weightman review to be announced shortly—and provided that investors are prepared to come forward. At the moment, the indications are that investors are prepared to come forward provided that we put in place, as I believe the House has already done with the regulatory justification, the necessary steps to facilitate the normal big infrastructure spending that it involves.
Dangerous Driving (Maximum Sentence)
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum sentence for a conviction of dangerous driving from two years to seven years; and for connected purposes.
Before my election to the House, I worked as a criminal barrister. One of the last cases that I was instructed in was defending a dangerous driver. I recall the grim expression on the face of the Crown Court judge when I got into the mitigation, not because I was wrong to ask for leniency, but because the law gave the judge insufficient discretion to mark the offence with an appropriate punishment. The driving was bad, but not the worst the judge had seen. Nevertheless, it was horrendous driving. I was keen to emphasise that it was not the worst of its kind. I finished my address by asking the judge to allow the defendant full credit for his guilty plea, and sat down knowing that I had done my best for my lay client.
Coincidently, one of the first cases that I dealt with as a Member of the House concerned the victim of dangerous driving, Katie Harper. Her case motivated me to push for a change in the law. Dangerous driving requires the prosecution to show that the driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. There is no definition of “far below”, but the danger must be either that of injury to any person or serious damage to property. The offence is not made out where the driving is less than truly dangerous.
The sentences handed down by judges leave victims feeling let down by the justice system when the offender is released from prison after just a few months, by which time the victims have not even started to come to terms with the damage that the offender has caused. Victims of dangerous driving are sometimes left brain damaged, paralysed or with amputations. The perpetrator will of course be punished, but the law does not currently allow the sentencing judge enough discretion to provide anything like the result that victims might expect. However, in the case of a serious assault, such as grievous bodily harm, the sentencing judge has at his disposal the discretion to mark the offence with a sentence that reflects the harm caused to the victim.
My constituency case helped me understand the real effect on victims of dangerous driving where injury results. In 2009, Katie Harper was a healthy 23-year-old English degree student until she was hit by another car overtaking a line of traffic at seriously excessive speed. Her passenger was her mother, Christine. Katie suffered multiple breaks to her pelvis, two broken arms, facial injury and serious nerve damage to her right leg. Her mother has also been left with permanent injuries after the near-fatal incident. The entire family have suffered. Katie’s father, Paul Harper, retired early from his job as a primary school teacher to provide the round-the-clock support that his wife and daughter need. My constituents’ case is by no means the worst.
The House will remember the tragic case of Cerys Edwards, an 11-month-old toddler. The Edwards family were the victims of a dangerous driver in 2006. Cerys has needed round-the-clock care since the collision. The driver was doing 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. He lost control of his mother’s Range Rover while overtaking. Cerys was left severely paralysed, brain damaged and reliant on a ventilator to breathe. The dangerous driver was released from prison after just six months. Cerys’s father, Gareth Edwards, is reported to have said, “It just goes to show we don’t have a justice system in this country”, when he heard that the offender had been released.
Many judges have described in their sentencing remarks their frustration at the inadequacy of the law. In researching my Bill I took the time to seek advice from the Recorder of Hull and East Riding, His Honour Judge Mettyear. Judge Mettyear told me that every judge in the country would, in his view, want to support this proposal. There is a clear anomaly in the law. Dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of two years, whereas causing death by dangerous driving is worth 14 years.
To highlight the disparity, let us imagine the following situation. Two young men who own powerful cars spend a Saturday afternoon with friends in a park. One suggests to the other that they should have a race. The friends warn them of the danger. One of them is not so keen, but he is heavily encouraged by his girlfriend, who offers to accompany him. He reluctantly takes up the offer and they race through the crowded streets, overtaking each other in the face of oncoming traffic, which has to swerve to avoid collision. They continue at great speed in order to escape the police. As they try to navigate a bend, they lose control. One of them ploughs into a bus stand, causing serious injury. The other manages to swerve to avoid the bus stand but hits a tree. His girlfriend, who is a passenger, is tragically killed. The other driver is lucky and does not cause death, but he leaves his victim paralysed and permanently brain damaged.
The one who causes the death will face up to 14 years’ imprisonment. The one who leaves the innocent victim paralysed and brain damaged will face a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. This sentence must then be reduced by one third, as credit for pleading guilty, and then further because it is not considered the worst such case that the judge has seen. The offender will serve a matter of a few months in prison, but what sentence does his innocent victim face? In this scenario, the culpability of the driver who caused death was in some ways less than the one who was lucky and did not. How is that justice? My motivation is compounded by the forthcoming justice Bill, which proposes to increase the discount for an early guilty plea from one third to 50%, which means that even the worst example of dangerous driving will attract a starting sentence of only 12 months.
I am grateful for the cross-party support I have received for my Bill. Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and their advice and encouragement has been gratefully received. I am grateful to Louise Casey, the Victims’ Commissioner, for her support and invaluable advice. I have also discussed my proposal with my area chief constable, Tim Hollis, who fully supports my efforts. The charity Brake welcomes the proposals and the AA, Aviva and the RAC have also committed their support.
I know that my proposal is unlikely to find its way on to the statute book in its current form, but I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will take on board the points that you, Mr Speaker, have allowed me to make. The Bill requires a simple amendment to paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to part 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The effect, however, would be substantial. The Bill would allow judges the discretion to redress the balance in favour of the victim. The proposed legislation addresses an anomaly in the law and offers a proper deterrent. I respectfully invite the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Karl Turner, Anna Soubry, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr John Leech, Julie Hilling, Chris Evans, John Mann and Andrea Leadsom present the Bill.
Karl Turner accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 190).
localism bill (ways and means)
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Localism Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the making of provision in relation to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax or stamp duty reserve tax in connection with a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by or under the Act; and
(b) the making of provision for a body not to be exempt from corporation tax, income tax or capital gains tax where in pursuance of the exercise of functions of the Greater London Authority the body carries on activities for a commercial purpose.—(Robert Neill.)
Localism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 17 January 2011 (Localism Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
TABLE
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
New Clauses relating to Part 1, new Schedules relating to Part 1, amendments to Clause 1, amendments to Schedule 1, amendments to Clauses 2 to 10, amendments to Schedule 2, amendments to Clause 11, amendments to Schedule 3, amendments to Clauses 12 to 14, amendments to Schedule 4, amendments to Clauses 15 to 29, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating to Part 2 and amendments to Clauses 30 to 34. | 7.30 pm |
New Clauses relating to Part 5, new Schedules relating to Part 5, amendments to Clause 89, amendments to Schedule 8, amendments to Clauses 90 to 96, amendments to Schedules 9 to 11, amendments to Clauses 97 to 101, amendments to Schedule 12, amendments to Clauses 102 to 107, amendments to Schedule 13, amendments to Clauses 108 to 120, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Schedules relating to Part 4, amendments to Clauses 39 to 56, amendments to Schedules 5 and 6, amendments to Clauses 57 to 64, amendments to Schedule 7 and amendments to Clauses 65 to 88. | 10.00 pm |
Second day | |
New Clauses relating to Part 3, new Schedules relating to Part 3, amendments to Clauses 35 to 38, new Clauses relating to tax in connection with provisions of Parts 6 and 7, new Schedules relating to tax in connection with provisions of Parts 6 and 7, remaining new Clauses relating to Part 7, remaining new Schedules relating to Part 7, amendments to Clauses 157 to 166, amendments to Schedules 19 and 20, amendments to Clauses 167 to 169, amendments to Schedule 21, amendments to Clauses 170 to 193, amendments to Schedule 22, amendments to Clauses 194 and 195, amendments to Schedule 23 and amendments to Clauses 196 to 200. | 4.00 pm |
Remaining new Clauses relating to Part 6, amendments to Clauses 121 to 133, amendments to Schedule 14,amendments to Clauses 134 to 140, amendments to Schedule 15, amendments to Clauses 141 to 150, amendments to Schedule 16, amendments to Clause 151, amendments to Schedule 17, amendments to Clauses 152 to 156, amendments to Schedule 18, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, amendments to Clauses 201 to 203, amendments to Schedule 24, amendments to Clauses 204 to 207 and remaining proceedings on Consideration. | 6.00 pm |
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
I will briefly introduce the motion. It is delightful to see that so many Committee members have come back for a second round. From the outset of our deliberations on the Bill, we said that we regarded the legislation as something that could benefit from the expertise that exists both within the House and outside.
We have been true to that statement, and we had a very interesting set of sessions in Committee: 24 sittings and 64 hours’ scrutiny. I probably spent more time during that period in the company of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), at least during waking hours, than I did with my wife—although the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) sort of doubled up on that time. We considered every clause in the Bill and finished its scrutiny with a little time to spare, so we made good progress.
During the Bill’s passage, we established an atmosphere that was constructive, usually harmonious and often uproarious, even. I do not know whether the remaining stages will live up to the high benchmark that we set, but we should aim to take matters in the same spirit—I certainly intend to—today, tomorrow and, indeed, when the Bill goes to another place. This is a Bill in which there are invested the hopes and expectations of many people outside this place, and we owe it to them to reflect seriously on the matters that are before us and, where we can be constructive, to be so.
I hope Members will recognise that the large number of Government amendments is testimony to some of my commitments in Committee to reflect seriously on the points that were made and to come back to the House in a constructive way. There have been discussions across the House and with outside bodies in helping to shape that approach, and no doubt they will come out in our debates over the next two days.
It is comparatively unusual to have two days on Report, but the Bill’s significance and extent justify it. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South and her colleagues will accept that it is appropriate to insert a couple of knives into our proceedings so that we can get on to talk about planning and, in due course, housing. It would be remiss if we did not secure that outcome.
No doubt we will not agree on everything, and there may be cause for Divisions, but, as in Committee, constructive suggestions will have the opportunity to be reflected on and reflected in the Bill’s further progress in another place.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I will be even more brief. As the Minister suggests, on Report the Government have tabled 234 new clauses and amendments, which is more than the number of clauses in the original Bill, so we have a lot to discuss. I would not say that we have two days. We have ended up with some concerns about the programming of these debates, but it would be more appropriate if we discussed them with the usual channels.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Looking at the proposed timetable, I note that parts 4 and 5 alone include 14 new clauses as well as Government and Opposition amendments, and there is no way in which considered debate can be held on all of them. As someone putting forward his own new clause, which is of huge importance to Wales, I am disappointed that insufficient time has been allocated on Report, and I call for extra time to ensure a considered debate about those vital issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Localism Bill
19:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 29 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Sunday trading hours - power to amend or repeal—
‘Notwithstanding any existing statutory provisions, a local authority may, for its area, impose its own regulations on Sunday opening hours for retail outlets that currently have a restriction in place to either—
(a) reduce the existing hours, or
(b) extend the existing hours.’.
New clause 10—Recall elections—
‘(1) If 25% or more of the registered voters in the constituency of an elected local government member sign a relevant recall petition then a recall election must be held on the same date as the next election (whether or not a local election) to be held in the constituency of the elected government member, provided that that election is not less than 12 weeks after the threshold has been reached.
(2) In order for a recall petition to be relevant the appropriate returning officer must be satisfied that—
(a) the petition has been submitted in accordance with the rules provided for in subsection (3) and;
(b) there is evidence contained in the petition that the elected local government member has—
(i) acted in a way which is financially dishonest or disreputable,
(ii) intentionally misled the body to which he or she was elected,
(iii) broken any promises made by him or her in an election address,
(iv) behaved in a way that is likely to bring his or her office into disrepute, or
(v) lost the confidence of his or her electorate.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay regulations before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act setting out—
(a) how notice of intent to petition for recall is to be given,
(b) how “registered voters” are to be defined for different types of constituency,
(c) the definition of “appropriate returning officer”,
(d) the ways in which registered voters can sign a recall petition,
(e) the ways in which signatures to such petitions will be verified,
(f) entitlement to vote in, and the conduct of, the recall election,
(g) rules on any other related matters as considered necessary by the Secretary of State, and
(h) consequential, saving, transitory or transitional provision (including amendments to existing statutory provision, whenever passed or made).
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to returning officers on how to make assessments under subsection (2)(b) within six months of the passing of this Act.
(5) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers in a recall election is “Should [name of elected local government member] be recalled from [name of body or office]?”.
(6) If at a recall election more votes are cast in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, then—
(a) if the elected representative has been elected under a first past the post or alternative vote electoral system, he or she is recalled and a by-election must be held within three months in which the recalled candidate may stand, or
(b) if the elected representative has been elected under a system of proportional representation, the next candidate on the relevant party list shall take the seat.
(7) In this section “elected local government member” means any person elected to the Greater London Authority, a county council in England, district council, or London borough council, including an elected mayor of the council; and the Mayor of London.
(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(9) Subsections (1) and (2) come into force six months after the day on which the regulations under subsection (3) are made.’.
New clause 27—Low pay policy statements—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument require relevant authorities to prepare a pay policy statement for lower paid staff within six months of this Act coming into force.
(2) In this section “lower paid staff” means—
(a) the lowest paid member of staff, and
(b) any member of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff.’.
New clause 28—Local authority contractor pay policy statements—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument require relevant authorities to prepare a pay policy statement for the highest paid staff and the lower paid staff of local authority contractors within six months of this Act coming into force.
(2) In this section—
(a) “local authority contractors” means a company or organisation (a “contractor”) that supplies services or executes works for the relevant authorities to the value of more than £250,000 in any financial year;
(b) “lower paid staff” means—
(i) the lowest paid member of staff, and
(ii) any member of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff,
(c) “highest paid staff” means the highest paid member of staff by remuneration, which shall include payments made by the contractor to the member of staff in connection with that staff’s employment, any relevant bonuses and benefits in kind.’.
Amendment 37, page 4, line 22, clause 5, at end insert—
‘(6A) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may not be exercised to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply—
(a) this Part of this Act,
(b) Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 section 7 or section 13,
(c) Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 section 23,
(d) Children Act 1989 Part 3 and Schedule 2,
(e) Childcare Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2,
(f) Child Poverty Act 2010 Part 2,
(g) Equality Act 2010, section 88,
(h) Equality Act 2010, section 149,
(i) Care Standards Act 2000,
(j) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 section 21,
(k) Transport Act 2000 section 145A,
(l) Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,
(m) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007,
(n) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007,
(o) Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000,
(p) Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995,
(q) Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
(r) Mental Health Act 1983 Part 8,
(s) Community Care, Services for Carers and Children Services (Direct Payments) England Regulations 2009,
(t) Public Health Act 1875,
(u) Public Health Act 1936,
(v) Commons Act 2006,
(w) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
(x) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40,
(y) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 25 or section 28E,
(z) Environment Act 1995 Part 4,
(z1) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
(z2) Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949,
(z3) Hedgerow Regulations 1997,
(z4) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 66 or section 72,
(z5) Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 sections 12 and 13,
(z6) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
(z7) Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 30,
(z8) Zoo Licensing Act 1981,
(z9) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Part 6,
(z10) Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3,
(z11) Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 28,
(z12) Education Act 1996 section 15ZA,
(z13) Food Safety Act 1990 Parts 1, 2 and 3,
(z14) Freedom of Information Act 2000,
(z15) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 section 1,
(z16) Housing Act 1996 Part 7,
(z17) Homelessness Act 2002,
(z18) Housing Act 2004 Part 2,
(z19) Local Government Act 1972 Part VA, section 99 or section 148,
(z20) Local Government Act 2000 Part 3 section 21 or section 37,
(z21) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 Part 1, or
(z22) Adoption and Children Act 2002.’.
Government amendments 44 to 50.
Amendment 36, page 5, line 32, clause 7, at end insert—
‘subject to the exceptions specified in section 5 (6A)’.
Government amendments 51 to 98.
Amendment 42, page 193, line 27, schedule 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 on page 195.
Amendment 43, page 198, leave out lines 4 to 25.
Amendment 2, page 199, leave out lines 30 to 43 and insert—
‘The elected mayor is to be returned under the simple majority system.’.
Amendment 3, page 200, line 6, leave out from ‘one’ to second ‘vote’ in line 7.
Amendment 38, page 205, leave out lines 29 to 31.
Amendment 1, page 208, line 48, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘2.5’.
Amendment 39, page 209, leave out lines 3 to 25.
Amendment 40, page 209, leave out lines 26 to 47.
Amendment 41, page 211, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 213.
Amendment 15, page 213, line 40, at end insert—
‘9OZA Elected Mayors and Reduction of Councillors
(1) Where a local authority has an elected mayor, that local authority must reduce within four years of the election of the Mayor the number of local councillors to one-third of pre-mayoral levels.
(2) These provisions will apply retrospectively to local authorities which already have an elected mayor and the reduction in councillors must take place within four years of this legislation taking effect.’.
Amendment 4, page 215, leave out line 17.
Amendment 5, page 215, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Government amendments 99 to 129.
Amendment 365, page 15, line 44, clause 16, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Amendment 366, page 16, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
Government amendments 130 and 131.
Amendment 367, page 16, line 31, clause 17, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Amendment 302, page 18, line 28, clause 21, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 303, page 18, line 30, leave out ‘A senior’ and insert ‘Subject to subsection (2)(b), a,’.
Amendment 304, page 18, line 31, leave out ‘its chief officers’ and insert—
‘(a) its chief officers and its lower paid staff; and
(b) the chief officers and the lower paid staff for each employer of indirectly employed staff, subject to paragraph (c);
(c) nothing in this Chapter shall be taken as requiring the publication of a pay policy statement where:
(i) it relates to indirectly employed staff; and
(ii) the aggregate value of all funding received by the indirect employer of the staff from a relevant authority does not exceed £250,00 in any financial year.’.
Amendment 305, page 18, line 41, at end insert
‘and the lower paid staff
(h) the total level of remuneration of the highest paid chief officer (A);
(i) the total level of remuneration of the lowest paid member of staff (B);
(j) the total number of staff being paid the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
(k) the number of staff paid less than 10 per cent. above the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
(l) the number of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
(m) the highest paid chief officer’s remuneration as a multiple of the lowest paid member of staff’s remuneration using the formulation A/B;
(n) the pay multiple to be maintained as set out in paragraph (3)(m).’.
Amendment 306, page 19, line 1, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 307, page 19, line 3, at end insert ‘and lower paid staff’.
Amendment 308, page 19, line 5, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 309, page 19, line 11, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 310, page 19, line 13, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 311, page 19, line 16, at end insert—
‘(6) Where any of the posts to be included in the pay policy statement are not full-time, the information given in the pay policy statement must be expressed as a full-time equivalent.’.
Amendment 312, page 19, line 29, clause 24, at end insert—
‘or its lower paid staff.’.
Amendment 313, page 19, line 30, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 373, page 19, line 39, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 314, page 20, line 35, clause 26, at end insert—
‘(g) any employee of the relevant authority whose remuneration exceeds that of any chief officer as defined in this section.’.
Amendment 315, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
‘(2A) In this Chapter “lower paid staff’, means each of the following—
(a) the lowest paid member of staff,
(b) staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff.
(2B) In this Chapter “staff” means any staff whether directly or indirectly employed by a relevant authority and who are not chief officers.
(2C) In this Chapter “indirectly employed” means staff employed other than by a relevant authority to undertake work for a relevant authority and which is funded by that authority. Any reference to indirect employment, indirect employer or indirectly employed staff, shall be construed accordingly.
(2D) In this Chapter the provisions of section 231 (associated employers) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 shall apply to indirect employment arrangements.’.
Amendment 316, page 20, line 36, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘, or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 317, page 20, line 38, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
‘, or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
Amendment 318, page 20, line 40, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘, or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 319, page 20, line 41, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 320, page 20, line 43, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 283, page 20, line 44, leave out ‘is’ and insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff is’.
Amendment 284, page 20, line 45, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
Amendment 285, page 21, line 1, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
Amendment 286, page 21, line 4, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 287, page 21, line 5, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 288, page 21, line 7, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 289, page 21, line 8, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 290, page 21, line 11, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 291, page 21, line 13, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 292, page 21, line 15, after ‘officers’, insert—
‘or lowest paid members of staff’.
Government new clause 13—Further warning notices.
Government new clause 14—Further EU financial sanction notices.
Amendment 353, page 22, line 1, leave out clause 30.
Government amendments 132 and 133.
Amendment 354, page 22, line 28, leave out clause 31.
Government amendments 134 and 135.
Amendment 355, page 23, line 41, leave out clause 32.
Government amendments 136 to 138.
Amendment 356, page 24, line 23, leave out clause 33.
Government amendments 139 and 140.
Amendment 357, page 24, line 38, leave out clause 34.
Government amendments 141 to 143, 183, 211, 216 and 217.
Government new clause 22—Pre-commencement consultation.
Government amendment 266.
Andrew Stunell
New clause 12 refines one of the central elements of the Bill—the general power of competence. I shall say more about that shortly and also address the other new clauses and amendments in this excessively long group.
The Government are committed to the radical decentralisation of power and control from Whitehall and Westminster to local government, local communities and individuals. We are pushing power back down to the lowest possible level, and this Bill is about shaking up the balance of power and revitalising democracy. It will give power to councils, communities, voluntary groups and the people, giving local authorities the power to take decisions that are right for their areas, and giving to local people the power to influence those decisions.
This Government trust local authorities to know what is best for their areas, we trust local councillors to know what they are doing and we are freeing up local government from the shackles of central Government. The Localism Bill does just what it says on the label.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks and wonder whether he is, therefore, just about to get on to the fact that he supports my new clause 8, which would give local authorities the opportunity to vary Sunday trading laws. If what he says is true and he wants to pass all such decisions down to the lowest possible level, that is surely what he is about to announce.
Andrew Stunell
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s case deployed in the debate.
I am pleased to report that there is a very broad measure of agreement, both inside and outside the House, on the Bill’s principles and, indeed, on many of its specific provisions.
Local authorities will need to ensure the delivery of more responsive services in a more transparent way, so that their citizens can see what is going on. To do so, local councils will need to innovate, to work across traditional boundaries and to ensure clear lines of accountability to their residents. That will be characterised, above all, by the way in which local democracy is renewed.
Within this very large group of proposed changes, there are a number of new clauses and amendments that hon. Members from all parts of the House have tabled, including the one to which my hon. Friend just referred. We shall debate them, I will consider carefully the points that hon. Members raise and I hope to have the opportunity to respond to them before the close of this debate.
We had a consensual time on the whole in Committee, and I hope that we can carry that forward in our discussion on this group of proposed changes.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Not wanting to become non-consensual at this early stage, I note that the Minister talks about limits on power, and we are still concerned about the Bill’s 142 extra powers for the Secretary of State. I am puzzled why new clause 12 specifies only the powers in clause 5(1), because they are exactly the same as those in clause 5(2). If there is a concern about limiting the powers of the Secretary of State, it should apply to both subsections. I wonder whether the Minister might cover that point.
Andrew Stunell
I hope to have satisfied the hon. Lady by the time I have completed my remarks. If not, I am sure that she will let me know.
All the Government amendments and new clauses, one way or another, are designed to improve the effectiveness of the Bill, given the range of issues that were raised in Committee, as the Minister of State said, and given outside events, including in particular the passage of the Welsh referendum, which means that some of the provisions that were in prospect earlier on can now be made a reality. To that extent, I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) that we are not inserting a whole lot of totally new provisions; we are simply making available to the Welsh Executive the same powers that are being made available in England. I hope he finds that somewhat reassuring.
We have, where appropriate, taken into account feedback from the consultations that have been carried out on elements of the Bill and representations that we have received from a wide range of organisations that have been interested in—and, in some cases, very excited about—the prospect of the Bill coming into force.
Barbara Keeley
This is the point where we have to become non-consensual, because Labour Members are still totally opposed to EU fines, and amendments have been tabled on that.
Andrew Stunell
I take note of that, and I will return to it in two or three minutes’ time, if I may.
The hon. Lady is of course right that there was not agreement on everything. I recognise, in particular, that there were different views on mayors, not only between Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams but among some of my hon. Friends. I will listen carefully to the points made today on the mayoral proposals in the Bill, particularly on such issues as shadow mayors and mayoral management arrangements. Overall, however, I was struck by how much we had in common and how much consensus there is about the need to change the power balance in this country in line with the direction that the Bill takes. I hope that the House will recognise that, through the range of new clauses and amendments that we have tabled, we have tried genuinely and thoroughly to address the points that have been raised.
Let me turn in more detail to new clause 12 and some of the other Government amendments. I appreciate that I have to strike a difficult balance between using up the available time for debate and giving the House a reasonable explanation of the measures before it. I will steer as good a course as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you will let me know if I go astray. New clause 12 and its related amendments impose conditions on the use of the delegated powers in clause 5(1) in relation to the general power of competence. Clause 5(1) sets out a power for the Secretary of State to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power of competence. We have termed this the barrier-buster power.
Amendment 64 is the equivalent provision for the general power of competence for fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales. The amendment imposes conditions on the use of the delegated powers in new section 5C(1) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which is inserted by clause 8. New section 5C(1) sets out a power for the appropriate national authority—Welsh Ministers for the devolved matters relating to Wales, but otherwise the Secretary of State—to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power for fire and rescue authorities.
Concerns were expressed about the scope of the delegated power at clause 5(1)—the barrier buster—and the equivalent powers in relation to fire and rescue authorities. The Government reflected on those concerns and decided to introduce specific preconditions as to the use of the barrier-buster power and the limitations on its scope. These include a proportionality test and a requirement to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by an order. In addition to the current requirements that the Secretary of State has to satisfy—in particular, that he must think that a provision prevents or restricts the use of the general power and must consult on his proposals—subsection (1) now provides that he must also consider the conditions set out in subsection (2), in relation to the general power, and in section 5C(1) in relation to the fire provision to have been satisfied in relation to the proposals.
The new conditions that the clause introduces ensure that the use of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended, that there is a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected, that there is no removal of any necessary protection, that no person will be prevented from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that they might reasonably expect to exercise, and that any provision is not of constitutional significance. In the light of Opposition amendments 36 and 37, it is perhaps worth explaining the effect of these conditions in a little more detail. The first condition is that the effect of the provision made by the order is proportionate to its policy objective. It might be possible to achieve a policy objective in several different ways, some of which might be more onerous than others and could represent a disproportionate means of securing the desired outcome, so the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that that is not the case and that there is an appropriate relationship between the policy aim and the means chosen to deliver it.
The second condition is that the provision made by the order, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest, on the one hand, and the interests of the person adversely affected by the order, on the other. While it may be possible to make an order that will have an adverse effect on the interests of one or more persons, the Secretary of State must first be satisfied that this is outweighed by beneficial effects in the public interest. The third condition is that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection. The notion of necessary protection can extend to economic protection, to health and safety protection, and to the protection of civil liberties, the environment and national heritage.
The fourth condition is that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. To take a leading example, any right conferred or protected by the European convention on human rights is a right that a person might reasonably expect to keep. The fifth and final condition is that the provision made by the order is not constitutionally significant. That condition will allow orders to amend enactments that are themselves constitutionally significant, but only if the amendments are not constitutionally significant. The condition puts it beyond doubt that repeal of legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Communities Act 1972 is outside this power.
In addition to these preconditions, we are seeking to amend the Bill so that an order under clause 5(1) or section 5C(1) of the 2004 Act may not make provision in relation to certain specified limitation. Subsection (3) prevents orders from being used to delegate or transfer a function of legislating, ensuring that a power to make legislation given by Parliament to the Secretary of State or to another body cannot be transferred to a local authority in the interests of barrier busting. It is right that those decisions should remain with Parliament. Subsection (4) gives a definition of the function of legislating—that is, legislating by order, by rules, by regulation or by subordinate instruments. Subsection (5) prohibits an order from abolishing or varying any tax. It could be argued that removing a tax payable by a local authority would be the removal of a barrier, but it is not our intention that clause 5(1) should be used in that way, so the new clause will prevent an order to vary tax from being made.
Taken as a whole, the Government’s proposals will provide the protections that the Opposition seek in amendments 36 and 37, but without the inflexible and heavy-handed mechanism that they propose. Amendment 36 would amend the definition of a statutory provision by excluding from that definition a long list of statutes, which is set out in amendment 37. That appears to have been prompted by various strands of work that are being undertaken to gather information about local authority duties. This appears to be an attempt to make a point about front-line duties and the desirability of many things that local authorities have to do. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) set out on her website as being her intention. She has fairly given me notice that she
“will be pressing ministers in the Commons debate…to be clear about which other vital council services can be protected.”
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the general power is not designed as a means to do away with duties that Parliament has imposed on local authorities. The general power does not oblige local authorities to act in a particular way; it is not the same thing as a duty imposed by legislation. It will give local authorities real freedom to innovate and act in the interests of their communities. The Opposition seem to have developed a misunderstanding about the scope of clause 5(1). It provides the Secretary of State with powers to remove or change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power. That restriction or limitation is one that bites on the general power by virtue of clause 2. The provision is about removing barriers to the legal capacity of authorities to act innovatively and in the best interests of their communities. It is not aimed at removing duties, nor is it, nor could it be, a general-purpose tool to remove any legislation that places a burden on local authorities.
New clause 12 and the connected Government amendments will increase the safeguards on the use of the power in clause 5(1). In addition, the Secretary of State must consult before exercising the power and the appropriate parliamentary procedure for scrutinising any proposed order will be determined by Parliament.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that clause 5, when taken in conjunction with the review that his Department is carrying out into burdensome regulations, might lead to the fear, which many of my constituents have expressed to me, that important protections and duties that exist within local authorities might disappear?
Andrew Stunell
The review of statutory duties is a separate exercise. We have made it clear several times that the review of statutory duties will not remove duties to provide vital services, and that any changes to statutory duties that come about as a result of that review will subsequently be properly considered and consulted on. There is no connection between the two processes.
I urge the House, when the time comes, to support new clause 12 and to reject amendments 36 and 37.
I will turn to the other proposals in this group, on which I hope I can be helpful. When the Committee discussed the standards of behaviour required of councillors, we discussed whether a local authority should have to publicise that it has a code of conduct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) made a powerful speech on the difference between may and must. I think that was one of the Committee’s high spots. Although we consider it right that a local authority can choose whether to adopt a code of conduct for its members, it must be under a duty to disclose whether it has done so and whether it has revised or abolished its code. That duty will ensure that local people are made aware when their local authority adopts, changes or withdraws its code, while leaving it for authorities to decide how best to publicise and deal with these matters.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Minister is putting the completely absurd proposition to the House that the local authority will be under a duty to publicise a code of conduct that it may decide not to have. Will he please recognise that that is nonsense? Abolishing the requirement for a code of conduct in every local authority in the country is a serious, retrograde step, of which the Government should be profoundly ashamed.
Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and the answer is no, I do not accept that at all. When we exchanged words in Committee, I thought that this was an outrage, so I am glad that it has been downgraded a little. The important point is that the decision a local authority takes should be transparent, so that the local electorate are aware of it and the local authority are accountable to them. We have accepted the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East put to the Committee, and Government amendments 130 and 131 deal with that.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister expect to give any guidance under the powers in the Bill on what a code of conduct might contain, or will it simply be left to the local authority to do its best?
Andrew Stunell
The Local Government Association has given notice that it sees itself as—I do not want to put words into its mouth and say the custodian—the focal point for ensuring that a standard code of practice is available. I would have thought that the huge majority of local authorities will continue to have a published and open code of conduct. Indeed, I should have thought that it would reflect adversely on the reputation of a local authority if it chose not to do so. However, the right place for that decision to be taken is in that local authority in the light of the views of its electorate; it is not something that should be imposed from above.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, we have a stringent code of conduct for local authorities. Has the Minister had any discussions with local authorities in Northern Ireland on using that blueprint for a code of conduct under these proposals?
Andrew Stunell
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill is not applicable in Northern Ireland. Currently, every local authority in England has to have a statutory code of conduct, so we are not for want of an example. We are saying that there should be flexibility about the shape and nature of the code, and that that flexibility should be exercised by the local authority.
On EU fines and infractions, I assure the House and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South that we will ensure that any process to pass on an EU fine is fair, reasonable and proportionate, and we will consult on that. We will pass on a fine only if an authority has clearly caused or contributed to causing it, and has the power to remedy the situation and can afford to pay. That is set out in new clauses 13 and 14 and in Government amendments 132 to 143. The measure is not about Ministers reclaiming every penny; it is about giving a strong encouragement not to incur fines in the first place. Local authorities must not be able to assume that if they make a mistake and are in the wrong, the UK taxpayer will pay their bill for them.
It is perhaps worth rehearsing what the process is. EU grants are given with conditions attached. At present, the monitoring, and therefore the risk, falls to central Government and their agencies. In the new, devolved world, that will not always be the case, and with the transfer of control has to come a transfer of risk. The Government do not seek to offload risks that are beyond a local authority’s control—mention has been made of air pollution targets and so on.
That will all be set out in a policy statement, and I can say today that we are making good progress on that. I am placing in the Library a paper from the Greater London authority that has emerged from some of our earlier discussions, and I would very much welcome comments on it. We do not necessarily agree with every single part of it, but it will provide a strong basis for discussion over the next few weeks and we are committed to taking that discussion forward. We have also engaged with the Local Government Association and will continue to do so.
We debated fire and rescue authorities in Committee, and our amendments 92 and 93 are a response to the concerns that the Opposition raised and feedback that we have received from industry partners. They relate to authorities’ powers to charge for attending persistently malfunctioning or wrongly installed automatic fire alarms. It is not in dispute that there should be such a provision for non-domestic premises, but the point was made that domestic premises would also be caught by that power, and probably wrongly so. The amendments simply remove that option from fire and rescue authorities.
We also discussed pay accountability in Committee, and we undertook to return to the House on the matter of greater accountability on low pay in light of Will Hutton’s report on fair pay in the public sector. His report made some clear recommendations, particularly about the benefit of setting decisions on senior pay in the context of the pay of the rest of a body’s work force. Some of the Opposition’s amendments are in the same tone. We are sympathetic to that idea, particularly the potential for linking lower pay with senior pay, and we will consider the best way to take that forward. If necessary, we will return to it in the other place. As we do so, we will remain mindful of the level of burden placed on authorities and ensure that pay decisions remain ones for the appropriate local employer to take and are not dictated by us.
On the other hand, we do not think it would be helpful to use the Bill to address the pay of contracting bodies. Councils, the voluntary sector and businesses, especially small firms, have called on the Government to remove unnecessary burdens and break down barriers in local authority contracting, not increase them. That does not prevent a local authority from developing a local policy to ensure that bodies with which it contracts are open about their rates of pay as a matter of contract. That should remain an issue for local decision making, not central determination.
We have a very large group of amendments, and you no doubt have a large group of Members wishing to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House on the one hand for taking so long and on the other for dealing with some very important topics only in skeleton form. I am pleased to move new clause 12, and in due time I will wish to move the other Government new clauses and amendments in the group. I undertake to listen carefully to Members’ contributions as the debate proceeds.
Barbara Keeley
I am glad that Ministers are still so interested in my website—it makes it worth all the effort of keeping it up to date.
I shall speak first to amendments 36 and 37, which are related to new clause 12. They are intended to protect a list of the most important duties of local councils from the powers that the Secretary of State wants to take in clause 5(1) and (2). I should remind the Minister that he did not answer my question about new clause 12 not applying to clause 5(2). I see that Ministers are looking at the Box and seeing if they can find some inspiration over there.
As I said on Second Reading, the Secretary of State’s power under clause 5(1) and (2) is chilling, because it would allow him to
“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”
any statutory provision. The Government can keep calling that barrier-busting, but it will still end up being the same swingeing power. The difficulty for those who are opposed to it is that it would leave local councils and the people who use their services at the mercy of the ideology of the current Government and Secretary of State. I know from the debates that we had in Committee that some of the Ministers were opposed to giving Secretaries of State such a level of power in previous local government Bills, and spoke against it. Perhaps they would like to think about why they have had such a change of heart.
Since our debates on the Bill started, the Department has launched its review of the statutory duties of local councils. That means that the nature of the power in question, and how it will be used to sweep away what councils are starting to see as burdens, is now much more under the spotlight. The Government’s focus on duties as “burdens” has caused alarm and great concern to people who rely on the services of their local council. Their concern about the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers to sweep away councils’ duties is greater because of the language that the Government are using to describe the vital duties on which people depend. In the review, councils and the public were asked to specify the bureaucratic burdens that they wished to throw away. In fact, Ministers have allowed all the duties of councils to be listed, and voted on, as “burdens”, “red tape” or “bureaucratic barriers”. In using that language, they do not appear to have considered the importance of many of the statutory duties of local councils.
Strangely, we now find ourselves bartering to try to find out which particular duties might be safe and protected from the Secretary of State. The Department’s website states that the only duties that might be protected are those on libraries and child protection, but the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), ventured in a recent letter to The Guardian that allotments were also safe. It is not reasonable to have only vague reassurances on three out of all the duties of local councils. We have therefore tabled amendments 36 and 37, and I say to Ministers that they must be clearer about protecting the vital duties of local councils—duties that legislation has created, which provide important protections and services on which people rely—from the power that the Secretary of State wants to
“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”
any statutory provision.
Members should make no mistake about it: there are real concerns about that power. Professor Luke Clements is a leading expert on community care law, and in an article about the statutory provisions that could be swept away by the new power, he stated:
“The list includes large swathes of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Children Act 1989 as well as virtually every community care and carers statute. The suggestion that protecting children or frail elderly people from abuse could be…‘burdensome’ is further evidence of the coalition government’s disdain for the very notion of a welfare state.”
He said of the Government’s approach:
“It is a contempt that has already created a largely lawless regime where fundamental rights, such as the right to a face-to-face assessment”
and
“the right to have assessed needs met regardless of resources…are openly flouted. It is a regime that fuels the daily news stories of disabled, elderly and ill people being failed by public bodies, and experiencing neglect and extreme indignity. In the face of this, the response of the coalition government is not to strengthen the law, but to suggest that it be trashed.”
Andrew Stunell
I have really been disappointed by the hon. Lady’s remarks, which are a travesty of what is in prospect. I spent perhaps a little too long in my speech explaining precisely what new clause 12 will do and making it absolutely clear what it will not do. I am sorry to say that she is making it up, which is not good.
Incidentally, I can answer the hon. Lady’s question about clause 5(2)—as she suggested, inspiration has arrived. It relates only to overlapping powers, so by definition it will not change local authority powers or duties because it will take away only one of the overlapping powers.
Barbara Keeley
I am afraid that I am not convinced by that, and I am not making this up. I know Professor Clements, because he helped to draft much of the carers legislation that went through the House as private Members’ Bills. He, among others, is very concerned.
To respond to the Minister’s point, part of the difficulty is that the conditions set out in Government new clause 12(2) are subjective. It is another lawyers’ charter, because they will have to settle the question of whether or not legislation fits those conditions. The key point is that all the decisions lie completely within the judgment of the Secretary of State. That is what is making people uncomfortable. There is great concern about sweeping away the laws, rights and protections for those who need care. Yesterday in the Palace, I attended a gathering of five all-party groups on disability—I attended as the chair of the all-party group on social care. Two questions were asked of the Bill and the review, and there was a chorus of concern in the room. Ministers can attack me if they want to, but I am representing concern from outside the House.
Citizens Advice has told MPs that it is worried about the broad-ranging powers that clause 5 confers on the Secretary of State. It is worried that the power will be used to revoke or repeal a number of statutory provisions, such as the public sector equalities duty.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister says that he wants power to be given back to local people. Does my hon. Friend agree that giving the Secretary of State 126 new powers contradicts that?
Barbara Keeley
That is a contradiction. In fact, the 126 or 142 new powers—we can count them in different ways—are of great concern.
The list of legislation that we propose in amendment 37 for protection from those new powers may not be perfect—I am sure people can find fault with it—but it is vital to get a clear steer from Ministers that they do not intend to continue to see important council duties as burdens. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Homelessness Act 2002, which is on our proposed list, creates a vital duty for councils to have a strategy for tackling homelessness, or does he agree with Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has asked for that duty to be scrapped? Hammersmith and Fulham also wants to scrap the rough sleeper strategy, and wants not to assess the sufficiency of locally available child care. It wants no requirements on its youth service. Do Ministers believe that Hammersmith and Fulham should be able to shed those duties? That is the key question.
Councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham want to shake off what they view as burdensome duties, but the Opposition’s view is that those council services are vital and should be protected. A list of what is vital and to be protected is the key to that. In Committee, the Minister said:
“Every local authority will retain duties enshrined in other legislation to provide services and not to charge for them, if charging is not allowed at present.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2011; c. 184.]
However, Hammersmith and Fulham wants not to have plans for homeless people, and Wandsworth council plans to charge children £2.50 to use a playground. That is where we are. It is time for Ministers to end the uncertainty that they have generated with their sloppy plans for revising legislation on council duties. It is time for them to reintroduce certainty, so that people know that councils must provide land for allotments and an efficient library service, assess carers’ needs, and have plans for tackling homelessness.
I welcome the Minister’s partial sympathy on proposed new clauses 27 and 28 and the proposed amendments on pay transparency and very much look forward to developments. Much has been said in recent months on top pay in local government. I am sure that Ministers would agree that a great deal of that talk has been stoked by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. However, he has tended not to show the same concern for the lowest paid staff, or for levels of pay among consultants and contractors, who provide £38 billion-worth of goods and services to local government, which is paid for out of the public purse.
Our proposals aim to introduce pay transparency much more fully than the Government plan. We want to shine a light on top pay and low pay, and I welcome the Minister’s sympathy for that. However, the Opposition also want to develop the recommendations in the Hutton review on pay. Ministers said that they would reflect on that review, and I hope they take that seriously. All hon. Members agree that there has been some excessive growth in senior roles in the public sector, but there are also myths about public sector pay. The Local Government Association estimates that of 1.7 million employees in mainstream local government jobs, 60% earn less than £18,000 a year. According to the LGA, more than 400,000 council workers earn less than the living wage, including more than 250,000 who earn less than £6.50 an hour.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. As a former Unison trade union officer, I know that a high proportion of those low-paid workers—a big majority—are women.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, a quarter of those who experience in-work poverty are employed by the public sector. In addition, the average public sector pension, at £4,200, is very far from the gold-plated pension that people talk about. Our proposals would introduce greater transparency and help the objective of curbing excessive pay at the top of the scale, because it will be harder for a highly paid council chief executive to defend his or her pay if the public can see what that council pays its lowest-paid members of staff.
The Opposition believe that as well as an approach on top and low pay, we need a fair and consistent approach to transparency in local authority pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said in Committee, Will Hutton’s report puts paid to the myths. Public sector employees earn only £1 of every £100 earned by the top 1%, or to put it another way, out of every £100 that is earned by the top 1%, only £1 is earned in the public sector. Therefore, the perception that the public sector is awash with fat cats is a myth, and it does not help when DCLG Ministers spend their time building that myth as a way of dealing with top pay.
The Hutton report confirms that increases in executive pay have been a private sector phenomenon. That is why tackling excess pay should happen not just in the public sector. We should also focus on pay in the private sector when money is paid from the public purse—that is the test. Staff on outsourced local government contracts tend to be concentrated in low-wage sectors such as cleaning, catering, low-skilled manual work and care work. One key question for hon. Members is this: do we want cleaners, care workers and teaching assistants to earn a living wage? The Opposition believe that they should earn such a wage. We therefore hope that Ministers and Government Members agree that the implementation of a senior pay policy in local government would be a double standard if the same logic is not applied to contractors, not least because the local government procurement market is valued at £38 billion.
Will Hutton said in his report that
“it is important that the Fair Pay Code and as far as possible the other recommendations of this Review are extended into the public services industry.”
I hope that Ministers—I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber—support Hutton’s proposals to extend pay transparency to those private sector contractors who are paid out of the public purse. Implementation of our proposals would help to ensure that executive pay does not spiral up, that low pay is challenged, and that people can be confident that their local council is spending their money fairly and wisely.
Finally, I support amendments 39 to 41, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Birmingham, Erdington. The proposals would remove the power of the Secretary of State, who has just joined us in the Chamber, to direct or order the imposition of shadow mayors. That is one of the most controversial measures in the Bill, and it represents the Government at their most centralising. The Government want to order a local authority to cease its existing form of governance and begin to operate a mayor and cabinet executive. Ministers spent months denying that they intended to try to impose shadow mayors.
I remind the Secretary of State that he gave the following answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 21 October 2010:
“She seems to be suggesting that we would somehow impose mayors on those 12 cities, but of course we will not-that is completely out of the question. The proposals will be subject to referendums. Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1117.]
[Interruption.] I am getting some confusing signals from Government Members. On the same day, to be clear about the Secretary of State’s intentions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asked him again whether it was his intention to turn council leaders into mayors before holding a referendum. He stood at the Dispatch Box and referred my hon. Friend back to the earlier question:
“I ruled out the possibility that we would be imposing mayors. This will be subject to a referendum.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1125.]
He was absolutely clear. However, the proposal in the Bill directly contradicts what the Secretary of State said on that occasion and on other occasions. It is further proof of a Government who say one thing and do another, and it raises further questions about whether what they say can be trusted at all.
Since the debate began on the proposal to impose mayors on 12 of our largest cities, opposition has bubbled up and developed all over the place. Indeed, the day after the Localism Bill was announced, the leader of Bradford council, Councillor Ian Greenwood, told the Bradford Telegraph and Argus newspaper that he was uncomfortable with being given an office to which he had not been elected. In that article, he said:
“My view is this is not the right thing for Bradford… I am uncomfortable about being given an office I wasn’t elected to. I don’t feel it’s the right thing to do. Leadership is not about dictating, it’s about taking people with you”.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that we need a clear line on this? The Secretary of State’s apparent proposal for Birmingham would mean that the person who lost the election this May and will lose it again next May will be imposed on the people of Birmingham, irrespective of how they vote. Surely there is nothing democratic about that.
Barbara Keeley
No, there is absolutely not. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
Hon. Members will be interested to know the extent to which there is all-party opposition to these proposals in Bradford. The Conservative group leader on Bradford council also argued against the imposition of a shadow mayor in that city. In the same article, Councillor Anne Hawkesworth said:
“My colleagues and I are not supportive of elected mayors… We do not think that the proposals are suited to the needs of…Bradford.”
Last week, the same issue was reported on again, when the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said:
“My view is that it should be for the councils to decide if they want to go down the referendum route. The referendum shouldn’t be imposed.”
The Opposition agree. Shadow mayors and referendums on having a mayor should not be imposed. In Bradford at least, it seems, there is Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Government’s proposals. However, there has also been opposition in other councils, including Leeds city council.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
While my hon. Friend is running through a list of authorities, will she also refer to Sheffield—now a Labour-controlled authority, of course? There has been cross-party agreement between Labour and Liberal Democrats, and all are opposed to any mayoral system at all, and certainly opposed to shadow mayors. I am sure that were there any Conservative councillors in Sheffield—which there are not—they would be joining in the opposition as well. Is it not a strange system in which a mayor’s legitimacy comes from being elected by the public, but a shadow mayor’s legitimacy comes from being the representative of most councillors on a council? In Sheffield, that majority of councillors are opposed to the proposals.
Barbara Keeley
Absolutely. I was not going to go through a complete list, but I welcome hearing about what has happened in Sheffield.
It seems that Yorkshire is turning against these proposals en masse, and there has been opposition in other councils—for example, in Leeds city council. The Yorkshire Post quoted its leader, Councillor Keith Wakefield, as saying that these proposals are
“not acceptable in today’s democracy… If people decide they want an elected mayor that’s what they should have, but do it following a vote… I think the idea of a referendum is OK where people have an opportunity to say yea or nay. What’s not right is putting you in a position where there’s been no vote.”
I understand that he would turn down the position whatever happens.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford East and his colleagues will support our amendment 41, and vote against the imposition of shadow mayors and referendums on their local councils.
Barbara Keeley
I am about to conclude, so as to leave time for other Members to speak.
I regret that a new group of amendments on scrutiny was not selected for debate tonight. It was debated in Committee, and I hope that it can be taken forward to the other place. I would like to underline again and again that we are still opposed to EU fines.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Report on this important Bill. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments, however, and that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will be as succinct as possible. I would like to refer to amendments 2 and 3. They are small but significant amendments that deal with the election of elected mayors. Because of their significance, I hope to press them to a vote tonight, unless Ministers see their merits.
I fully subscribe to the localism agenda. I believe that we have become an over-centralised state, with too much power at the centre, whether with Ministers or civil servants. The Bill will start to turn the tanker around. I accept that progress will be slow, but it will take the agenda in the right direction. On Second Reading, I said that a cultural change was required first in Whitehall, with less interference and prescription from the centre, and, secondly, in the town hall, with people there taking more responsibility. However, localism has three strands: the division of power; tax-raising powers; and governance. I would like to concentrate on governance, particularly elected mayors.
I am a strong supporter of the concept of elected mayors. That is the direction in which we should be going. They are open, transparent and accountable, and I also believe that they will help to revive local government. I thought that there was broad cross-party support for them, because they were introduced by a Labour Government in 2000, and because, obviously, the coalition Government are retaining the concept and looking to introduce 11 new mayors in due course.
Kelvin Hopkins
I accept that elected mayors were a Labour concept, although I was not in favour of them. It is noticeable that across the country many local authorities have rejected the idea, and that many of those who voted for them now regret doing so.
John Stevenson
I accept that they are not universally supported by all parties, but I believe that there is broad support. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point, though, because there are several reasons why elected mayors have not caught on. However, I want to concentrate on my amendment 2 about their actual election.
At present, mayors are elected under the supplementary vote system, which is retained in the Bill. Effectively it is a form of the alternative vote. My amendment 2 would change that so that future elections are done under first past the post. That would provide a consistent approach to elections. Varying the voting system creates confusion and a lack of certainty for the average voter. Two weeks ago, this country went to the polling booth for a referendum on whether we wanted AV or first past the post. Had the voters supported AV, I would have withdrawn this amendment. I would have accepted the will of the people. In fact, there was an overwhelming and emphatic vote for first past the post. As one hon. Member said to me, “The people of this country did not say no; they said never.” I accept that judgment, but I believe there has to be consistency. I support the amendment on the basis that we should have a consistent approach to our elections and that elected mayors should therefore be elected under first past the post. I genuinely hope that the House will agree with what the people said two weeks ago and support the amendment.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I want to address new clauses 13 and 14 on EU fines. I believe that ministerial advice stated that individual fines to local authorities would be appropriate where there was a direct causal link, and where councils were guilty of action or inaction. One example is waste, on which I would like to address two key issues: EU directives on recycling and landfill taxes.
The Local Government Association briefing is dismissive of the Government’s proposals. It states:
“Moves to allow Ministers to force English councils to pay parts of fines imposed on the UK government by the EU are unfair, unworkable, dangerous and unconstitutional. This is an unprecedented power for Ministers to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny and will inevitably lead to legal battles as Government tries to apportion “blame” for EU fines.”
The LGA urges that the policy be scrapped, and continues:
“In effect it means a Minister may simultaneously be prosecutor, judge, jury, and co-defendant, when Ministers themselves may actually be responsible for fines being levied. This is neither impartial nor localist.”
There are reasons why the Government are responsible for such fines perhaps being levied, but I want to address the confusion that seems to exist in Government. The Minister for the natural environment—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—said in Committee in March that local authorities would not face what I describe as “bin taxes”, which are charges on local authorities and their residents for not reaching the EU’s 50% threshold. I asked him:
“I want to press the Minister on EU fines for England and Wales on waste collection. Does he support the individual fining of authorities that do kerbside collection and that are struggling to reach 50%, as suggested by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government?”
The Minister replied:
“I can tell the Committee that local authorities will not be fined individually for not achieving 50%. I can give that assurance…If we are failing, it will be lamentable”.—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 March 2011; c. 9-10.]
There seems to be a great deal of confusion between the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this issue. To be honest, I would like the proposal scrapped, but we at least need some clarity on how to reach 50% recycling rates and avoid EU fines.
The Bill does nothing to protect my constituents, particularly given that councils in east Lancashire have been hit extremely hard by DCLG cuts. Residents in my local authority, which was Conservative until last Thursday night—thankfully we now have a Labour authority—had achieved a 40% recycling rate, or just under. In effect, we are talking about a bin tax by any other name, and it is unfair. The message to the Minister this evening is that it is not the fault of the residents of Lancashire. The county council’s waste private finance initiative schemes would have resulted in a 90% recycling rate, but they were scrapped a few months ago. Up until a few months ago we had a strategy that would have enabled us to avoid EU fines, and we are talking about some of the most deprived communities in this country.
There are also issues around recycling centres. If the Government will not invest in recycling centres, or if the spread of recycling centres across the country is disproportionate, that is not fair either, but that is a Government policy. It is not an EU policy; it is a policy that the Government will be answerable for. The LGA is quite correct to say that the Government will be held to account; indeed, this issue could end up in the courts.
However, there is a second, more important reason why the scheme is not fair—a reason that I put to the Under-Secretary—and it concerns the difference between kerbside and co-mingled collections. Kerbside collection rates are around 30% to 40%, whereas co-mingled collections through recycling centres are hitting 80%, 90% and beyond. Local authorities in areas with co-mingled recycling will have high collection rates, but they will also have problems with contamination, which I accept. The Government are trying to encourage people not to co-mingle, but to separate. However, collection rates in areas with kerbside collections are much lower, so EU fines are unfair.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in his tracks, but I think that I can reassure him. He is operating on completely the wrong premise. There is no suggestion at all that a fine would be levied on an authority because of its performance on recycling rates. The only suggestion is that if the authority does not adopt a plan as required—that is, something specifically required of that authority—and if it has been warned that it needs to have one, that will be the occasion for a fine. That authority’s performance is completely irrelevant, whatever it might be. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and allow him to return to the issue at hand.
Graham Jones
I thank the Minister for that, because he is essentially saying that he has just ripped up his own new clause, which now has no teeth—he has just taken them all out. If local authorities are to come up with a plan, they will come up with one and carry on recycling at 30%. However, the Minister is not going to say to local authorities, “Well, actually, because you’ve got a plan, we’re going to do something about it.” Instead, he will be saying, “You’ve got a plan, so we’re going to do nothing about it.” He has taken all the teeth out of his own new clause, so why has he proposed it? Why has it taken him until today to say what he has said this evening, and why do ministerial statements say that the proposal involves waste? He is effectively telling people that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to give way. The hon. Gentleman has given way once, and if he wishes to do so again, I am sure that he will let the Minister know.
Graham Jones
I accept what the Minister has said on the record, which he made absolutely clear. The new clause has no value, but I would say—
Graham Jones
No.
The Minister of State had the opportunity before to say what he has said this evening, but there are real issues—[Interruption.] That is fine, but it is the Government who are putting forward their new clause, which now has no teeth.
In conclusion—because I was wrapping up—the LGA says that the proposal will be problematic to enforce. What are the Government enforcing? How can local government increase recycling rates for residents? If action is to be taken, it will hit some of the poorest communities that have higher recycling rates, not some of the wealthiest ones, and the same goes for landfill taxes. I appreciate Ministers’ comments, but as far as I am concerned, I am delighted that all the teeth have been taken out of this proposal.
Philip Davies
I certainly hope that the Minister will give me as helpful a response as he gave the previous speaker when he considers my amendments.
My new clause 8 would allow local authorities to vary Sunday trading hours in their areas. As hon. Members will know, under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, large shops over 280 square metres may open for only six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays, excluding Easter Sunday, when they must remain closed. I think that this is rather anachronistic. Sunday trading is increasingly popular. I have no interest to declare, but I do have some experience to declare, as somebody who worked for Asda for 13 years. In my time there, Sunday trading hours were the busiest hours of the trading week. Contrary to common belief, Sunday trading hours were also the most popular hours that members of staff wished to work, because for many people Sunday was one of the few days on which they could do additional hours, as they had other people at home looking after their children and so on. If people want to shop on a Sunday or work for certain hours, I do not really see what business the Government have telling them what hours they can do.
Members may be aware that Scotland has a different regime. Sunday trading is fully deregulated in Scotland, although, under the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, workers have the right to refuse to work on Sundays. I am not aware that the whole world has collapsed in Scotland as a result of deregulating Sunday trading hours. In fact, my experience is that it has proved to be incredibly popular with both customers and workers alike. I would like workers and shoppers in England and Wales to have exactly the same rights to shop or work in shops at a time of their choosing as people in Scotland have.
My new clause 8 would not give local authorities the opportunity simply to extend Sunday trading hours, because I believe in true localism. My new clause also offers local authorities the opportunity to restrict Sunday trading hours further, if they so wish. If we believe that decisions should be taken locally, we should give local authorities the widest possible ability to make decisions to suit their areas. In areas that need extra regeneration, the opportunity to open for extra hours on a Sunday might be welcome, as it may benefit the local authorities in such areas. I do not see why the Government should stand in those authorities’ way if they believe that to be an important part of their regeneration strategy. Other local authorities may wish to restrict Sunday trading hours. I would not advise them to do so—I do not think it would be very popular—but that would be up to them, as democratically elected local authorities. So I hope that the Minister will explain whether he agrees with my proposed extension of the principle of localism. If he does not agree, will he tell me what on earth his objection is to extending a right to the people of England that the people of Scotland already have?
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Philip Davies
I want to press on, because the Government have allocated a shameful amount of time for this debate and other people want to speak.
I support first past the post, even though my father would have been disadvantaged by it. My amendment 15 proposes that there should be a two-thirds reduction in the number of councillors in local authority areas that have an elected mayor. There are already far too many local councillors; Bradford has 90, for example. The US Senate has only 100 people in it, for goodness’ sake. Why do we need 90 councillors in Bradford? If we are to have an elected mayor as well, why on earth should we have an additional layer of bureaucracy, more expense and more levels of local politicians? If we are going to have an elected mayor, for goodness’ sake let us reduce the number of local councillors at the same time and save the council tax payer some money. I hope that the Government will accept my rather modest amendments, but if they do not, I will certainly be interested to hear their reasons.
Kelvin Hopkins
I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about first past the post. I am not a supporter of elected mayors but, if we have to have them, they should be elected by the first-past-the-post system. He is absolutely right.
I rise briefly to speak to my amendments 353 to 357, which would delete clauses 30 to 34. The clauses relate to fines to be imposed by the European Union. I find the whole idea of such fines complete anathema—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thought that I might get some support in the Chamber on that point. We could quite easily leave out all reference to the EU, and I would like to see that happen.
I note that the Minister, in introducing the new clause, said that he had already had discussions with the Local Government Association. The LGA is very concerned about this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) rightly said. I hope that the Government will think again and simply delete any reference to the EU. Rather than giving freedoms to local authorities, their proposals will put an imposition on them. They would place more central control on them, rather than leaving them to their own devices and giving them more freedoms.
I hope the Minister will think about this and that the Government see fit, during the later stages of the Bill, to delete any reference to the EU. I strongly support the LGA’s view, which was ably set out by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister will give this matter some thought. I shall not press my amendments to a Division, but I hope that he will bear in mind my feelings and those of many other Members.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am grateful for this opportunity to place my views, with which those hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee will already be familiar, on the record, and I apologise for any repetition. I fully support amendment 41; indeed, there are many amendments that I could support, and many more that I would like to have seen that no one else would have supported. I feel strongly about this one, however. It relates to elected mayors and shadow mayors, and to the executive powers of the mayors. Amendment 41 deals with something that symbolises everything that is wrong with the Bill.
There is nothing worse than waste, and there is nothing worse than a wasted opportunity. The Bill is a colossal wasted opportunity for the House to consider the relationship between central and local government. We have profoundly let down the democratic system by not reviewing that relationship. We could have looked at what other countries do, and agreed some basic principles against which any measures relating to local authorities could have been evaluated. I agree with Professor Stewart and Professor Jones, who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, that this is a centralism Bill, rather than a localism Bill. How different it could have been if the will had been there to make it so.
Opposition Members will no doubt be delighted to learn that, in my local authority, the Lib Dems lost a seat to Labour. We lost it in an election in which nearly seven out of 10 electors did not turn out to vote. At a time when politics is divided, and when big issues are dividing the nation, we again need to ask profound questions about why people are so reluctant to turn out and vote. We need to ask questions about the quality of the candidates, as well as about the turnout. We also need to ask what the measures in the Bill will do to address the serious democratic deficit in this country. We know the reasons behind the problem. We know that, when we knock on the doors, people say that we are all the same. The reality is that that is largely true. It is hard to be different in local government. The discretion and freedom to be different have disappeared, year by year, Government by Government.
In Committee, I mentioned local authority budgets. Bradford has a budget of more than £1 billion, yet we end up discussing only £1 million or £2 million. Local politicians expend a lot of hot air disputing those amounts, while the vast majority of the budget is beyond their control. Yes, we are largely all the same. The Bill could have removed barriers and restrictions. I do not understand why, when we are desperate to remove barriers to the private sector to encourage initiative, entrepreneurship, enterprise and freedoms, we do not do the same thing at local government level. Those barriers will remain after the Bill has been passed.
The Government are still overbearing, arrogant and interfering. They are still ruling by stipulation, by compulsion and by bribery. They provide handouts that local government can spend, but on one thing only. How many times have Members who were formerly councillors known that the only show in town involved doing whatever the Government were funding? They were not given the discretion to spend that money as they wished. The funding would go only to the private finance initiatives or to academies, for example. We, as locally elected councillors, were not given the money and asked how we would like to spend it. Remember the bribery involved in the swimming campaign and the free school meals? The initiatives lasted for one year only, and we had to pick up the tab the year after. They were introduced simply to facilitate ministerial press releases.
None of this will be changed by the Bill. Councillors are used and abused. The Treasury insists on controlling the finance, and without financial freedom, there is no democratic freedom. The low opinion of local government held by people in this place staggers me; I am appalled by it. An example is the outrageous front-loading of the cuts. Instead of local government being seen as a partner to help us through the financial crisis by contributing to the deficit reduction over a period of time and being asked for help to deal with it, the cuts have been imposed on it from above by a Government who claim to support localism.
I support amendment 41. My views on elected mayors are, quite frankly, my business and they should be expressed in a ballot if my council decides that that is what it wants to do. I will participate in that debate—not in this place, but where it should take place: in council chambers up and down the country. Yes, we should set parameters and controls; yes, we should demand disclosure, which was mentioned earlier; but for goodness’ sake, let us breathe life back into a vital part of our democratic system.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the next localism Bill. Does he agree that it is important, even for those who might not support the amendments on the shadow mayors and related issues, to ask Ministers to look at these proposals again?
Heidi Alexander
I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall limit my comments to a few. I applaud the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) for his speech. I did not anticipate hearing comments like that from the Government side of the Chamber, but he is a man who says it as it is, and I respect his views and the way he put them.
I shall focus on two aspects of this group of new clauses and amendments: senior pay policy, dealt with in new clauses 27 and 28, and powers to make supplemental provision, as set out in amendment 37 to clause 5. Bringing transparency to senior council pay is entirely right. I accept that some people might have been paid excessively in some circumstances, but this constant bashing of chief executives and senior council officers by Ministers does a complete disservice to people who do an incredibly difficult job in councils up and down the country. Some of these people will have worked their whole lives in local authorities; others might have left good private sector jobs to work there.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Lady is adopting a strange position in defending the massive increase in pay at the top of the public sector. Does she accept that her Government could have done something about transparency? When she talks about a disservice, is not the real disservice to the electors of our communities who have to pay the bills for these people who have earned incredible amounts of money over the last few years?
Heidi Alexander
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that I accepted pay transparency is a good thing at both the top and the bottom of an organisation. I accept that the previous Government could have brought forward measures to insist on pay transparency and I know that some local authorities were transparent. Many have independent remuneration panels that would take decisions about councillor pay. I know that my own local authority is certainly looking at having an independent panel to review executive pay. My point is that we should shine a light on abuses, but that this constant barrage is disproportionate.
These measures are, in my view, all about the Secretary of State getting a headline. Listening to him, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that if only 600-odd council chief executives were paid less, the national budget deficit would be dealt with. It will not. This is a complete red herring. Let us take the example of my local authority of Lewisham. The council’s overall pay bill is £280 million, which pays for thousands of staff. The top 32 jobs of senior management account for £4.1 million; the five executive directors and the chief executive cost the council in the region of £1 million. Yes, £1 million is a huge amount of money, but we have to take account of these individuals’ responsibilities and the repercussions they might face if they gave bad advice, took bad decisions or implemented bad management. When politicians make a bad decision, they might lose an election, but council officers doing the same could end up in prison.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The responsibility of chief officers has not changed. The last Government actively encouraged councils to be rewarded in inspections for being seen to pay high salaries, because that appeared to make the same officers better officers.
Heidi Alexander
I have no experience of that happening. I would be interested to speak to the hon. Gentleman after the debate to learn more about his experience.
What puzzles me most about this Government’s obsession with senior pay is that it comes at a time when they seem spectacularly unwilling to tackle excessive pay in the private sector. I represent a London constituency and I know that there are bankers, lawyers and accountants who, within five or six years of graduating from university, will be earning £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year. That is not far off the wage of a head of children’s services. I ask whether it can be right to put all the focus on senior council pay.
I agree with the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers that deal with bringing transparency to low pay. Lewisham is an authority that has led the way on implementing the London living wage. As a result of its London living wage policy, 800 contracted staff are better off from the council’s insistence on seeking invitations from contractors that put in a London living wage bid as well as a regular bid. I am proud of the work that the authority has done on that and I believe that there are ways of encouraging the public sector and local councils to do the same.
I had wanted to comment on amendment 37, but I am conscious of the time. It is strange how the Government are, drip by drip, telling us which duties they wish to protect—whether it be duties to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, or to provide allotments or whatever. Why did the Government not do this work before they put out their review of burdensome regulations? A couple of weeks ago, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government heard the Minister for Housing and Local Government talk about the Department’s decisive leadership in abolishing the Audit Commission. I would urge the Government to show some leadership in saying which of the “burdens” they value and want to see protected. It seems to be one rule for one thing and a completely different rule for something else. I think it is sloppy and poor government—sadly, I think many of the Bill’s provisions are an example of poor government. I look forward to voting against some clauses and in favour of some amendments when we get the chance.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
We have so little time that I am going to cut straight to the chase; I hope not to take more than a minute or two.
I speak in favour of new clause 10, which I tabled and which is supported by Members from both sides of the House. It concerns the recall of councillors. I view this as a simple, obvious, “no brainer” idea, which I hope will be met with a nod of approval by both Front-Bench teams. I will briefly make the case for it.
As Members know, the Government are planning to introduce a recall mechanism for parliamentarians, whereby Members face being removed from office if their constituents so choose. The plans, in my view, do not go nearly far enough. MPs will be subject to recall only if a Committee decides that they have committed an act of serious wrongdoing. Recall is supposed to be about empowering people, not parliamentary Committees, so I shall seek to amend that provision when I have a chance. In the meantime, I was pleased that the Secretary of State promised to consider introducing into this Bill a recall mechanism for councillors. That has not happened, so I have done it for him.
I am fortunate in that my constituency is served by some excellent councillors, but we all know that there are some councillors who do very little for their constituents, so there should surely be a mechanism whereby residents can hold councillors to account during the four years in between elections in the same way as employees are in every other field of human endeavour. It cannot be right to ask Members to vote for measures that will introduce recall for parliamentarians, but not for councillors in local government, which is just as important.
My new clause would allow for
“25% or more of the… voters in the constituency of an elected local government member”
to petition for and trigger a recall election. I think that that strikes the right balance between preventing vexatious recall attempts and empowering local people to hold their elected councillors to account. The new clause would greatly empower local people and would keep councillors on their toes, and I hope that it can be put to the vote so that the House can support it.
Mr Raynsford
I wish to speak, very briefly, to amendments 365 and 366, which I tabled and which relate to standards.
In his opening remarks on the programme motion, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—who steered the Bill through its Committee stage—expressed a wish to listen to the views of people, whether they were members of the Committee, other interested parties, or people who had given evidence to the Committee. As he knows, an awful lot of people gave evidence, and many who gave evidence on standards gave very interesting evidence. Sadly, however, the Government did not listen to the evidence, including that given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government may be right in saying that there is a case for some streamlining of the standards procedure, and indeed I conceded that in Committee, but I am afraid that they are making a serious mistake in substituting for the existing machinery a framework that is incoherent, that is potentially extremely weak, and that will contain serious anomalies.
Let us examine those three problems. First, clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to require local authorities to establish a procedure relating to the declaration of interests, a breach of which will involve a criminal liability. Clause 16 allows the establishment of an entirely voluntary framework within which it will be up to a local authority to decide whether to adopt a code of conduct. That could lead to an extraordinary situation. Someone who had failed, perhaps owing to a technicality, to declare an interest as part of the mandatory requirement imposed by Government would be liable for a criminal action, whereas someone who had behaved in a deplorable way—who had bullied people, been dishonest, or behaved shamelessly in the council chamber—could emerge scot-free because the council concerned had chosen not to adopt a code of conduct. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
Secondly, there will be no code of conduct promoted by Government, like the model code that has existed in the past, that could serve as the default in the event of a local authority’s failure to adopt its own code.
Thirdly, there is a serious risk that, under clause 16(2), a local authority that currently has a code of conduct could
“withdraw its existing code of conduct without replacing it.”
Ministers claimed that they would leave this to local government—that they would do the right thing. At a time when we are all concerned about standards in public life, whether at national or local government level, it is extraordinary that they should produce a half-baked proposal which has not been thought through, which allows loopholes and anomalies to exist, and which—most seriously—undermines the substantial progress that has been made in recent years in improving those standards.
Although Ministers appear unwilling to accept the case for amendments in the House of Commons, I sincerely hope that Members in another place with real experience of these matters will press amendments to ensure that there is a more coherent, more satisfactory and more demanding framework to maintain standards in public life.
Andrew Percy
I served as a local councillor for 10 years under the previous standards regime, which was an abuse of and an assault on local democracy. As long as councillors do not break any criminal law, it is for the public who elected them to judge their behaviour. I was once referred to the standards board by a political activist for having dared to be a school teacher. The process wasted public money, because someone had to investigate, only to find it was all a load of old guff. It was a politically motivated referral, and there were countless examples of the same thing in my council chamber. Members on all sides reported each other for everything. That is a load of old nonsense, and the sooner it goes the better.
As for pay policy, I cannot support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). It is incredible that the Opposition should advance such proposals, having done what they have done to public sector pay at the top. I recall that when the Labour authority in Hull was seen as a failing council—I believe that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) was a Minister at the time—we were inspected by officials who told us that we must pay our senior staff more. We ended up with five corporate directors on outrageous salaries of £105,000 a year. [Interruption.] It is true: I was there at the time. We saw a massive explosion in pay. The suggestion that we should take lessons from the Opposition on the subject takes some swallowing.
I do, however, agree that there should be more transparency in regard to private contractors who work for local authorities. My local council, which was Labour-controlled until two weeks ago but is now Conservative-controlled, has spent £3 million on consultants in the last year, and spent millions of pounds in the preceding years. There should be more openness about how money is spent and how much people in the private sector are making. There is a good point behind the proposal, although, as I have said, it takes a little bit of swallowing given that the last Government presided over the pay explosion at the top.
Having made those few comments, I will yield to other Members who, I am sure, are keen to make their own contributions.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Let me first say how ably my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) spoke to amendment 2, which concerns the first-past-the-post system for electing mayors. I shall certainly support him in the Lobby if he presses it to a vote.
The Government are clearly in favour of the principle of elected mayors, given that they propose to allow 12 of them in the Bill. What I want to know is why they are making it so difficult for local authorities to initiate the process. Local authorities will rarely, if ever, vote for a referendum on the election of mayors. Because of the cosy relationship that often exists between councillors, they view elected mayors as a threat. However, elected mayors can provide leadership and transparency and revitalise local democracy, and we should do all that we can to encourage them. My amendment 1 would reduce the threshold of the electorate who can petition for an elected mayor from 5% to 2.5%. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of my proposal, and will support it.
Gavin Barwell
I want to comment briefly on three of the amendments that have been discussed so far.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) about a recall procedure for councillors, but, although I hope that the Government will reflect on the points that have been made and that such a procedure will be introduced eventually, I think it would be inappropriate for the House to introduce it before introducing a similar procedure for Members of Parliament.
I found it incredible that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—who would not take an intervention—should criticise the Government for forcing referendums on the governance structure of local authorities, given that the Government whom she supported forced virtually every council in the country to adopt executive systems of governance with no recourse to referendums.
Finally—I am conscious of the time—I strongly support the new clause about Sunday trading that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). He and I do not agree on many issues, but we agreed on two today, sentencing and Sunday trading. I also had a lot of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) about first past the post. He spoke of the need for consistency, but his amendment would introduce a big inconsistency between the Mayor of London and other elected mayors. The Government should consider that issue in the context of the results of the referendum.
Andrew Stunell
The Localism Bill does what it says on the label. In Committee we tested and tweaked it, and today we are taking another step forward. I urge my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to give—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Division off.
Question negatived.
Clause 5
Powers to make supplemental provision
Amendment proposed: 37, page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(6A) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may not be exercised to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply—
(a) this Part of this Act,
(b) Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 section 7 or section 13,
(c) Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 section 23,
(d) Children Act 1989 Part 3 and Schedule 2,
(e) Childcare Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2,
(f) Child Poverty Act 2010 Part 2,
(g) Equality Act 2010, section 88,
(h) Equality Act 2010, section 149,
(i) Care Standards Act 2000,
(j) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 section 21,
(k) Transport Act 2000 section 145A,
(l) Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,
(m) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007,
(n) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007,
(o) Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000,
(p) Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995,
(q) Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
(r) Mental Health Act 1983 Part 8,
(s) Community Care, Services for Carers and Children Services (Direct Payments) England Regulations 2009,
(t) Public Health Act 1875,
(u) Public Health Act 1936,
(v) Commons Act 2006,
(w) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
(x) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40,
(y) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 25 or section 28E,
(z) Environment Act 1995 Part 4,
(z1) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
(z2) Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949,
(z3) Hedgerow Regulations 1997,
(z4) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 66 or section 72,
(z5) Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 sections 12 and 13,
(z6) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
(z7) Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 30,
(z8) Zoo Licensing Act 1981,
(z9) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Part 6,
(z10) Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3,
(z11) Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 28,
(z12) Education Act 1996 section 15ZA,
(z13) Food Safety Act 1990 Parts 1, 2 and 3,
(z14) Freedom of Information Act 2000,
(z15) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 section 1,
(z16) Housing Act 1996 Part 7,
(z17) Homelessness Act 2002,
(z18) Housing Act 2004 Part 2,
(z19) Local Government Act 1972 Part VA, section 99 or section 148,
(z20) Local Government Act 2000 Part 3 section 21 or section 37,
(z21) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 Part 1, or
(z22) Adoption and Children Act 2002.’.—(Barbara Keeley.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Sustainable development
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, not later than six months after this Act is passed, make provision in regulations to—
(a) define sustainable development in the planning context, and
(b) incorporate the five principles of sustainability as set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy—
(i) living within environmental limits;
(ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(iii) achieving a sustainable economy;
(iv) promoting good governance; and
(v) using sound science responsibly
into planning law and guidance.
(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult such organisations and persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’.
New clause 4—Community Right of Appeal
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where a local planning authority grants an application for planning permission and—
(a) the authority has publicised the application as not being in accordance with the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or
(b) the application is one in which the authority has an interest as defined in section 316;
certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State, provided any one of the conditions in subsection (2C) are met.
(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) are—
(a) the ward councillor for the area (if that councillor has lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority), or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by unanimity;
(b) any parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F, covering or adjoining the area of land to which the application relates, by two-thirds majority voting; or
(c) any overview and scrutiny committee, by two-thirds majority voting.
(2C) The conditions are:
(a) Section 61W(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies to the application;
(b) the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment; and
(c) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission.”.
(3) Section 79 is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “authority”, insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;
(b) in subsection (6), after “land”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B)).”.’.
New clause 5—Powers of the Secretary of State
‘(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that a statutory provision (whenever passed or made) is creating uncertainty for local authorities in the discharge of their planning functions or is a matter of public dispute between local planning authorities and other relevant bodies, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend, repeal, revoke or disapply that provision.
(2) The power under subsection (1) may by exercised in relation to—
(a) all local authorities,
(b) particular local authorities, or
(c) particular descriptions of local authority.
(3) The power under subsection (1) to amend or disapply a statutory provision includes power to amend or disapply a statutory provision for a particular period.
(4) In this section “statutory provision” means a provision of an Act.
(5) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such local authorities
(b) such representatives of local government, and
(c) such other persons (if any), as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
New clause 6—The purpose of planning
‘(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) Before section 1 insert—
“A1 Purpose of Planning
(1) The purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development.
(2) Any person exercising functions and duties under the planning Acts must do so with the objective of achieving sustainable development and shall have regard in doing so to any guidance given for that purpose by the Secretary of State.
A2 Interpretation
‘(1) In this Act—
(a) ‘sustainable development’ means development that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs including the application of the following principles:
(i) living within environmental limits;
(ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(iii) achieving a sustainable economy;
(iv) promoting good governance;
(v) using sound science responsibly;
(b) ‘the planning Acts’ means—
(i) the Localism Act 2011;
(ii) the Planning Act 2008;
(iii) this Act;
(iv) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
(v) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
(vi) the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; and
(vii) the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.”’.
New clause 7—Removal of permitted area restrictions
‘(1) A relevant local authority may consider and, if it thinks fit, grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate and may do so regardless of whether or not—
(a) the premises to which the application relates are situated in the area of the relevant local authority which issued the licence; and
(b) the area of the relevant local authority in which those premises are situated was a permitted area when the converted casino premises licence was originally issued.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not require a relevant local authority to consider any application to vary a converted casino premises licence if that local authority has passed a resolution under section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005 (resolution not to issue casino licences) and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.
(3) In Schedule 4 to the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006 (transitional provisions), for sub-paragraph (13) of paragraph 65 (application of the Gambling Act 2005 to casino premises licences granted on a conversion application) substitute—
“(13) An application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate shall be made—
(a) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of the licensing authority which issued the licence, to that licensing authority; or
(b) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of another licensing authority, to that other licensing authority,
and section 213(f) (definition of licensing authority) shall apply to such an application as if the licensing authority considering such an application under paragraph (b) was the authority which issued that licence.
(14) Nothing in paragraph (13)(b) shall require a licensing authority to consider or grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate if—
(a) the premises are wholly or partly situated in the area of a licensing authority which did not issue the licence; and
(b) the licensing authority has resolved under section 166 not to issue casino premises licences and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.”.
(4) In this section—
“converted casino premises licence” has the same meaning as in the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006;
“permitted area” means the area of a local authority which was a permitted area for the purposes of the Gaming Act 1968;
“relevant local authority” means a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland which is a licensing authority under the Gambling Act 2005.’.
New clause 11—Transfer of generating station consent powers to Welsh Ministers
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer to the Welsh Ministers those functions of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Marine Management Organisation which relate to applications for an order granting development consent for the construction or extension of generating stations in Wales or in waters in or adjacent to Wales up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid within 12 months of the passing of this Act and are subject to the negative resolution procedure.’.
New clause 29—Retail diversity scheme
‘(1) In Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 after section 15 insert—
15A (1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a scheme to be known as their retail diversity scheme.
(2) The retail diversity scheme must form part of the Local Development Scheme within two years of the Local Development Scheme being published or within two years of this Act being passed, whichever is later.
(3) The scheme must—
(a) define a network and hierarchy of retail centres in the local authority area,
(b) assess the need for development in retail centres,
(c) identify sites for development based on the sequential approach, and
(d) promote retail diversity.
(4) In this section—
(a) ‘retail diversity’ means a mix of retail provision that meets the requirements of the local catchment area in terms of range and quality of comparison and convenience retail businesses;
(b) ‘sequential approach’ means that local planning authorities must identify sites that are suitable, available and viable for development in the following order—
(i) locations in appropriate existing centres;
(ii) edge of centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected to existing retail centres;
(iii) out of centre sites with preference given to sites well served by a choice of transport and are closest to an existing centre.
(5) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the scheme as he thinks appropriate.
(6) Such a direction must contain the Secretary of State’s reasons for giving it.
(7) The local planning authority must consult with the local community in developing the scheme.
(8) The local community as defined under subsection (7) must include—
(a) a parish council or parish councils authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
(b) a ‘qualifying body’ authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
(c) any other local person at the discretion of the local planning authority.
(9) Where a retail planning application is submitted and there is no retail diversity scheme in place the applicant must provide a statement to the local planning authority that sets out how the development impacts on the criteria identified in subsection (3); and the local planning authority must consult the local community as defined in subsection (8) before coming to a decision on the application.”’.
New clause 30—Planning consent for betting offices
‘(1) That, notwithstanding any existing statutory provision, a local authority may require planning consent to be applied for pursuant to section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and granted prior to the establishment of, or change of use of premises or land to establish, a betting office in that local authority’s area.
(2) “Betting office” means premises, other than a track within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005, in respect of which a betting premises licence under Part 8 of that Act has effect.’.
New clause 31—Change of use class for betting offices
‘The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 is amended as follows—
‘(1) In article 3(6) (exclusion from use classes), at end add—
“(n) as a betting office”.
(2) In Part A (Use Classes) of the Schedule to the principal Order, in Class A2(c) omit “(including use as a betting office)”.
(3) “Betting office” means premises, other than a track within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005, in respect of which a betting premises licence under Part 8 of that Act has effect.’.
New clause 32—Amendment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
‘In section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents)—
(a) leave out “(taken as a whole)”,
(b) leave out from “contribute” to “change” and insert—
(i) achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008;
(ii) meet current national policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change, in relation to that area.’.
New clause 34—Guidance on opencast mining: separation zones etc.
‘(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the national planning policy for opencast mining in England within six months of this Act being passed.
(2) The guidance must require a minimum separation zone of 500 metres between the site of an opencast mine and the nearest residential property, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
(3) Mineral planning authorities in England must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when fulfilling their functions.
(4) In this section “opencast mining” means the working of minerals by opencast operations and the carrying out of operations incidental to such working.’.
New clause 35—Scope of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (No.2)
‘The Secretary of State must within 12 months of this Act being passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”) removing permitted development rights specified in neighbourhood development orders from the scope of the GPDO.’.
New clause 36—Scope of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (No.1)
‘The Secretary of State must within 12 months of this Act being passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”) removing land or premises used or formerly used as a public house from the scope of the GPDO.’.
Government amendment 144.
Amendment 293, clause 90, page 61, line 6, at end insert
‘including a County Council, an Integrated Transport Authority for the area or a Marine Plan Authority.’.
Government amendments 145 to 147.
Amendment 294, page 61, line 13, after ‘undertaken’, insert
‘where issues or impacts cross administrative boundaries and with the objective of achieving sustainable development’.
Government amendment 148.
Amendment 295, page 61, line 15, at end insert—
‘(ab) the preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance.’.
Government amendment 149.
Amendment 297, page 61, line 17, at end insert—
‘(d) the preparation of the Local Transport Plan;
(e) the preparation of marine plans; and
(f) other activities that support the planning of development, so far as relating to the development and use of land or sea.’.
Government amendment 150.
Amendment 296, page 61, line 18, leave out from ‘land’ to end of line 20 and insert
‘and strategic infrastructure and in particular the preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance.’.
Amendment 298, page 61, line 20, at end insert—
‘(3A) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) must involve—
(a) a local planning authority who is also a member of a Local Enterprise Partnership as approved by the Secretary of State; and
(b) every other person within subsection (1).
(3B) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) includes in particular—
(a) the collection of evidence on issues defined in subsection (3C);
(b) the preparation of policy guidance in relation to issues defined in subsection (3C); and
(c) any other activities that support joint infrastructure planning.
(3C) For the purpose of subsection (3B) the issues to be addressed include—
(a) housing needs;
(b) climate mitigation and adaptation and in particular flood risk;
(c) economic development including retail needs;
(d) energy needs and capacity;
(e) biodiversity;
(f) natural resource use including water management; and
(g) transport.
(3D) The person or bodies defined in subsection (1) must exercise the function of Joint Infrastructure Planning with the aim of achieving sustainable development and must act under guidance, including as to the meaning of sustainable development, as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.’.
Government amendments 151 to 156.
Amendment 299, page 61, line 36, at end insert—
‘(7) In this section—
(a) “marine plan” has the same meaning as in section 51 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
(b) “marine plan authority” has the same meaning as in section 50 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
(c) “sea” has the same meaning as in section 42 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(8) The fulfilment of the duty in subsection (1) shall be regarded as a material consideration by an independent examiner carrying out functions under section 20(7) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.’.
Government amendments 157 and 158.
Amendment 369, clause 95, page 66, line 33, leave out from ‘levy)’ to end of line 38 and insert ‘in subsection (2), after second ‘ensure’, leave out to the end of the subsection and insert
‘that owners and developers of land make a financial contribution to support communities in the area in which their development is situated, including the provision of infrastructure and the building, improvement and renovation of housing.’.
Government amendments 159 and 160.
Amendment 6, schedule 9, page 289, line 23, after ‘live’, insert ‘, or businesses registered,’.
Amendment 7, page 289, line 26, after ‘live’, insert ‘, or businesses registered,’.
Amendment 8, page 289, line 27, at end insert—
(ba) the organisation or body is competent to undertake the task of preparing a neighbourhood plan with appropriate professional support.’.
Amendment 9, page 289, line 27, at end insert—
(ba) the organisation or body is representative of different sections of the community.’.
Amendment 10, page 289, line 28, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘12’.
Government amendments 161 to 163.
Amendment 359, page 292, line 25, at end insert
‘except for the winning and working of minerals in, on or under land by surface working and any associated activity.’.
Government amendments 164 to 168.
Amendment 301, page 298, line 6, at end insert—
‘(1A) A neighbourhood development plan must include policies to—
(a) achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) meet current national policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change, in relation to that area.’.
Government amendments 169 and 170.
Amendment 12, schedule 10, page 300, line 38,
(h) imposing a duty to conduct an equalities impact assessment in line with the Equality Act 2010.’.
Government amendments 171 to 174.
Amendment 11, page 303, line 14, at end insert—
‘(1A) Any person who makes written representations seeking to change a neighbourhood development order must (if he or she so requests) be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.’.
Government amendments 175 to 182.
Amendment 371, clause 102, page 72, line 14, leave out ‘majority’ and insert ‘all’.
Amendment 372, page 72, line 15, at end insert
‘and within a radius of a quarter of a mile from the site of the application’.
Amendment 370, schedule 13, page 327, line 24, at end insert—
55A In section 115(1) after ‘associated development’, insert ‘, except where the associated development is the carrying out or construction of surface works, boreholes or pipes on a site all of which falls within the area of a single local planning authority, where consent for such works should be required from the local planning authority.’.
Government amendments 184 and 258.
Greg Clark
It is a pleasure to be debating planning issues again. I am sorry that that is occasioning an exodus from the Chamber, as I think it is one of the most fascinating parts of the Bill. I cannot promise to emulate the winding-up speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) who, in 30 seconds, gave the finest speech that I have ever heard him give, but I will endeavour to reach those high standards.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in his place to respond. Those of us who served on the Bill Committee have missed our daily dose of historical education and elucidation, and I dare say that Members who were not on the Committee are in for a treat tonight.
We have a large group of amendments to discuss and so as to avoid the fate of my hon. Friend, I will try to say something about as many as possible of them in my opening remarks so that it may not be necessary to expand at length later in the debate. We made good progress in Committee on this part of the Bill. There was a shared understanding that there were problems with the planning system that have grown up over time, which the Bill provides an opportunity to address. It is not a matter of party political contention that the persistently observed problems with the planning system centre around the fact that over recent years it has been too top-down. People have felt that planning is something that has been done to them, rather than something in which they have had a say or which they have had a chance to influence.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On the abolition of everything that is regional, which is clearly Government policy and has been for some time, the Minister has just indicated that the duty to co-operate was the central plank that would replace on some sort of strategic basis the regional dimension. With hindsight, does he think the Government gave enough attention and thought to how the duty to co-operate should be formulated and how it should work in practice? There seems to have been an awful lot of criticism from everybody with an interest in these matters about the Government’s position in the Bill.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I know that as Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, he has taken a great interest in these matters. I have always been clear that the Bill represents a major change and it behoves any Minister from whatever party to listen to representations and to seek to improve what is a different way of solving a classic problem—planning issues that have a larger than local dimension to them. The previous Government attempted a resolution through regional arrangements. We formed a view, for better or for worse. Some of us on the Government Benches thought that those arrangements should not have been entered into in the first place. Those on the Opposition Benches would reflect, I think, that the arrangements have had their day and should be replaced with a means of addressing larger than local issues that is robust and captures the need for strategic planning. I will go straight to the amendments that relate to that—Government amendments 144 to 158—and say something about the Opposition’s amendments as I do so.
We accepted that there was an opportunity to strengthen the duty to co-operate that was set out in the Bill as originally drafted. Indeed, I perhaps agree that a minimalist view was taken of that duty. We have replaced it with something that enjoys support from a wide range of groups, having reached a form that they endorse as a useful resolution to some of these matters. I pay tribute to the effort and work that many groups outside the House have put into strengthening the duty to co-operate. It would be churlish not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who approached these matters in a similar vein; the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee provided a basis on which to discuss these matters and to make progress.
The duty to co-operate will be significantly strengthened by the amendments that we, as promised, have brought forward. They are modelled closely on what we said was appropriate in Committee and what the Royal Town Planning Institute has proposed. As the professional planning body, it was the organisation that worked most closely on this, but a wide range of other outside bodies were involved, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition, which includes the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Town and Country Planning Association. In particular, we have taken up their suggestions, which were echoed in some of the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, to make clearer the application to cross-boundary issues and to the marine planning system, which needs to be addressed. We have also taken input from the Planning Officers Society, whose members will be charged with meeting the duty to co-operate. As a result of its suggestion, our amendment proposes to put a reference to county councils on to the face of the Bill. That deals with one of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments that he will no doubt talk to shortly.
The combined effect has been to create a much stronger duty to co-operate that covers all authorities and a proposed list of prescribed bodies that themselves would be subject to that duty, because planning matters clearly concern not only local authorities, but other public bodies. I know from speaking with councils up and down the country that one of the frustrations is that they sometimes feel that they have not had the full and enthusiastic co-operation of other public bodies in producing plans that are clearly relevant to them.
I have placed in the Library of the House our draft list of bodies to be included in addition to local authorities. They include the Environment Agency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, Natural England, the Mayor of London, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Homes and Communities Agency, primary care trusts, the Marine Management Organisation, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Highways Agency, Transport for London, integrated transport authorities and highways authorities. I think that it is absolutely right that those public bodies should be required to give every co-operation to local authorities in producing strategic plans that are larger than local plans for their area.
We also propose in these amendments an enabling power that will require all bodies that are subject to the duty to co-operate to have regard to the activities of other bodies when preparing plans that may not have a public character. Foremost among these are local enterprise partnerships. We intend to identify local enterprise partnerships as bodies that the prescribed bodies with the duty to co-operate must take into account and with which they will need to co-operate fully.
The duty to co-operate applies to the preparation of all development plan documents and, in particular, it requires engagement to maximise effectiveness. This cannot be a minimal engagement that simply responds to a questionnaire, which it was feared the original formulation might lead to. There must be active engagement to maximise the effectiveness of all relevant development plan documents. It applies to all strategic issues, which will be interpreted as issues that cross at least two local authority planning areas. It refers to sustainable development, because we know that the environment, in particular, does not stop at local authority boundaries and continues way beyond them, so it is absolutely right that there should be a requirement to co-operate on that. Infrastructure requirements typically go beyond local authority boundaries as well. It requires consideration to be given to the preparation of joint plans and development documents. In particular, I hope and expect that local enterprise partnerships will use their planning powers to pool some of their policies relating to the development of the economy so that they will have attractive, appealing and clear pro-growth policies, especially in areas where there is a need to attract new employers.
The crucial test of the duty to co-operate is the soundness of the plan. If the inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with, the plan will be unsound and cannot be adopted. Therefore, there is an absolute safeguard that this is not just a voluntary activity, but that it is absolutely at the heart of plan making, and rightly so, because the strategic level is very important to emphasise.
The amendment, which is the product of extensive consultation with the professional bodies and some of the other representative bodies, anticipates and deals with many of the amendments that Opposition Front Benchers might be minded to move. If I have time at the end of our considerations on this group, I will respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. In particular, amendment 293 deals with the inclusion of county councils, and that is covered by our amendments. He will have heard me mention integrated transport authorities and the marine planning organisations in the list of prescribed organisations that I intend to publish. Sustainable development is very clearly marked there and is explicitly referenced, as are local transport plans and marine plans.
On this new clause, I can do no better than quote the briefing on that which the Royal Town Planning Institute made available to Members:
“The RTPI has worked closely with the Government on strengthening the arrangements for planning at the larger than local level and believes that the amended Clause 90 should be supported.”
It states that the Government are
“to be congratulated for listening on this issue.”
I hope that we have been able to discharge the commitments that I made in Committee to establish a replacement for the regional arrangements that is rather more robust than the original version.
Let me turn to some of the other new clauses and amendments tabled by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, has asked that at this stage we consider the specific question of whether a definition of sustainable development should be included in the Bill. New clause 2 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and her colleagues, and those on the Opposition Front Bench have tabled some amendments relating to this matter. I will give an indication of the approach I would like to take on this, because it is an area that, as many Members know, is close to by heart. I completely agree that the purpose of planning is to promote sustainable development and that all plans and decisions should reflect that.
New clause 2 captures where we should be, and I certainly undertake to give my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole most of what she seeks. As was always intended, we will bring out a draft national planning policy framework in July, which will have sustainable development at its heart. It will set out what we mean by sustainable development.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will that sustainability—sustainability can, of course, include many different strains—include community sustainability, such as providing for places of worship in local communities?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend anticipates the detail of the national policy planning framework, but at this stage all I would say on sustainable development is that the Government have no issue or disagreement with the classic definitions of it. The Brundtland definition, that development undertaken by this generation should not compromise the ability of future generations to live their lives, has stood the test of time and is very clear. Although I am foreshadowing the content of the framework, I want to give a clear signal to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members that we intend to follow that approach.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
This is a little like having the winding-up speeches before the debate has started, but, in anticipation that there might not be much time to set out the arguments for sustainable development, may I ask the Minister, given what he has said, whether he agrees that there is no substitute for writing sustainable development into legislation? Here we are, yet we do not have the details of the statement that will come out next week or later, so how can we ensure that sustainable development is written into the legislation? Is not that the most important aspect of this exercise?
Greg Clark
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I hope she accepts that we have stated clearly that we are very comfortable with the classic definition of sustainable development, which will be prominent—in fact, it could not be more prominent—in the planning policy framework. She has no grounds for concern. Her Committee asked for an assurance that sustainable development would continue to be part of planning policy, and I take that point.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I wish to return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) made about places of worship. From my discussions with the Minister, I know that he has spoken warm words, but will he use this opportunity to place on the record his broad thinking about how places of worship can be accounted for in planning policy?
Greg Clark
I will resist the temptation to stray from the proposed changes before us. There are amendments that deal in particular with sustainable development, but I say in passing that the opportunity for communities to have and to promote places of worship is a reflection of their sense of community, and we would be wholly in opposition to the direction of the Bill if we had any intention of restricting that—quite the reverse. I do not think that my hon. Friend has any cause for concern.
The previous Government promoted the five principles of sustainable development—living within environmental means, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly—in the sustainable strategy. I have no difficulty with that, and without going into too much detail I would expect those principles to be reflected in planning policy, where they always have been. That has been the place for them.
The challenge from new clause 2—to require sustainable development to be put forward after a period—also carries an important virtue. The national planning policy framework will be subject to consultation, and it is quite right that we should give people the chance to see our definition—I have given a pretty broad steer as to what it will be—and to comment on it, rather than simply capturing something in the Bill now. I would be perfectly relaxed about doing so, but we should give people the chance to reflect on and to add to the definition.
Joan Walley
I hear what the Minister says, but would it not have been more appropriate if we had had that public debate alongside a White Paper, when sustainable development could have been looked at across the range of planning policy, not just as part of the framework to be published shortly? We could have looked at that first, but instead we are considering things in the dark.
Greg Clark
We are not quite in the dark. I hope that I have illuminated some of the dark, given what I have been able to say about the proposed contents of that White Paper. At the time of the Budget, I said that we would try to bring forward the definition a little earlier than the rest of the document, because I know that there is an interest in it. That will at least allow the other place to have the benefit of that thinking. If a greater token of good faith than my words at this Dispatch Box is required, it will appear quite shortly.
I think hon. Members will be satisfied with our approach. I have long regarded the matter as a personal interest, having shadowed the energy and climate change brief in opposition, and there is nothing in our approach that does anything other than enhance matters. By clarifying, and taking away much of the undergrowth around, planning policy, it will make more resonant the principles that the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and my Liberal Democrat hon. Friends so rightly want to promote.
Neighbourhood planning is another important addition to the Bill. I freely accept that the initial version of our clauses on this could have been improved, and I made commitments in Committee that we would reflect on improvements that could be made. The hon. Gentleman was particularly exercised, and indeed lyrical, about the opportunities to improve some of these provisions. He was dismayed that a neighbourhood forum in which these issues could be discussed was liable to take place in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck, thinking that too intimate a space for such a gathering and suggesting that it should be larger. We have reflected on the size of public houses across the country, and we think we need to enable more people to attend the forums.
There is no Dog and Duck in Birmingham, as far as I was able to establish, which is a great disappointment. There was a Dog and Duck in Holloway Head, which is perhaps an area of the city that he knows, but sadly it was demolished some time after 1899. I have brought in this very appealing photograph of the pub, which I will give to the hon. Gentleman so that next time he is in his city he can research its antecedence. I have to say that it does not look the most salubrious of establishments, but then I do not know what his taste is in public houses, and he might regret its disappearance. He may also be dismayed to hear that another public house demolished in Birmingham in recent years was the House That Jack Built. I am sure that that is a source of regret to everyone in Birmingham, but perhaps it is an opportunity for him.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
While my right hon. Friend’s comments are amusing, does he understand the frustration of many of us, including members of the all-party save the pub group, that even after this Bill has been passed, it will remain perfectly possible for people to demolish free-standing pubs without the community having any right to have a say?
Greg Clark
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will say a few words about that in moment, and I hope to give him some comfort. He is absolutely right that one of the types of building that communities value most, whether in towns or villages, is their local pub. The frustration they feel in seeing some of these buildings demolished without the opportunity to do anything about it is a source of great concern. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who snaffled very sharpish the title of “Pubs Minister” when the portfolios were being handed out just after the general election, takes a particular interest in this and has been meeting representatives of the Campaign for Real Ale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his group.
For Members of the House who were not in Committee, I should explain that we asked a series of questions about neighbourhood planning. First, is it right for neighbourhoods below the local authority level to be able to promote a vision of their future? We agreed that it was. This is easily available to areas that have parish councils or town councils: a standing democratic body is available, so it is easy to give it such powers. The next question is whether areas that do not have parish councils or town councils should be excluded from the ability to have a neighbourhood plan. There is an argument that they can apply for parish status, so we can provide a little bait to attract them towards doing that. Those on both Front Benches reflected on this and agreed that if some parts of the country decided that they did not want a standing parish council or town council but nevertheless wanted a neighbourhood plan, they should not be denied that.
How can we bring together people in those places in an acceptable way to discuss these matters? In the Bill, that question turns on neighbourhood forums. We agreed to increase, through amendments, the minimum number of members of a neighbourhood forum from three—the number at which it was rather unfeasibly set—to 21. Landlords across the country can now count on at least 21 customers being in their snug to discuss neighbourhood plans rather than the minimum of three. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington argued strongly that we should increase the number. We have gone a little beyond the number that he suggested, and that is absolutely right. Government amendment 160 makes that clear.
Amendment 160 also makes it clear that businesses should be involved. Clearly, any conception of a neighbourhood—certainly one that includes a high street—must reflect the fact that sometimes the people who have the interests of the community most at heart and who most epitomise the community are those who run businesses, because they are at the heart of the community. The fact that someone runs a business in a town but lives elsewhere should not preclude them from participating in the neighbourhood forum. We are happy to reflect that point, which again was urged by the hon. Gentleman, in Government amendments.
Annette Brooke
On amendment 160, will the Minister clarify what will be the balance between residents and businesses? The amendment could be read to mean that businesses alone could drive an agenda, which might not be compatible with what the residents want. I wonder whether the wording needs to be looked at again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister resumes, I clarify that he is not supposed to have his back continually to the Chair. He is supposed to address the whole House, not just the Members behind him. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
Greg Clark
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly intended no discourtesy to you or anyone else in the Chamber.
We do not want to be too prescriptive in the rules for neighbourhood forums, because we want as many people to participate as possible. Nevertheless, we have specified the requirement in the examination that they should be open to all. Part of the test that the examiner will make is whether there are sufficient efforts to involve all sections of the community, including businesses and definitely residents. Various types of residents must also be included, because it is important that the whole community is represented. We have also clarified that councillors have a right to be involved in the neighbourhood forum, even if they do not reside in the ward that they represent, as is sometimes the case. I hope that Government amendments 161 and 162 cover the point made by the hon. Lady. If they need strengthening, we are happy to look at them again. I think that they make it clear that forums need to reflect the community and should not allow any narrow interests to dominate. That is one of the most important tests.
Good points were made in Committee by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about cross-border arrangements. I recollect that they share a border in Blackheath. It is important that Blackheath is able to have a neighbourhood plan, and I very much hope that it will. Government amendments, in particular amendment 168, will make that possible, and will ensure that there will be only one plan for the area. It would be wrong for competitive plans for Blackheath to be promoted from the Lewisham side and the Greenwich side. It is important that they work together.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Do the provisions of the Bill apply to urban and metropolitan open spaces in the same way as they do to green belt development?
Greg Clark
If residents so desire, the provisions of a neighbourhood plan can designate spaces that residents want to keep as green space.
The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that it should be possible for the examiners of plans to be planning inspectors or local authority officers. We perhaps erred too much on the side of reassuring residents that they had the right to promote their plan in the face of a recalcitrant local authority, and therefore excluded local authority officers and planning inspectors from being involved. We actually found, to our delight, that there is a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of many local authorities. Where a community and its local authority can happily work together, its officers should not be excluded from being involved.
We have also addressed, in Government amendments 171 and 172, the need for the development of neighbourhood plans to be properly funded, recognising that the capacity of communities varies from place to place. Those amendments give the Secretary of State the power to arrange for payments to be made in support of neighbourhood planning, or for services such as training to be provided.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend gives many words of encouragement to those of us who have tabled amendments. Does he have any such warm words for neighbourhoods that happen to be in a coal mining area and face the threat of open-cast mining applications? They would like to be able to include that matter in their neighbourhood plans.
Greg Clark
I was going to come on to my hon. Friend’s amendments, but since he raises the matter I will turn to them now. I will have to disappoint him. Neighbourhood plans are conceived as being about issues that just affect neighbourhoods. Although mineral extraction has consequences for particular neighbourhoods, it is clearly larger than a local matter. It has consequences for the wider authority and, in many cases, for national Government. It is not right to expect neighbourhood plans to govern mineral extraction, which goes beyond their scope.
Joan Walley
The issue of open-cast coal mining is critical, particularly in former coal mining areas. If there is going to be a presumption in favour of mineral extraction instead of that being balanced with environmental considerations, that suggests that there will be no commitment whatever to sustainable development at the heart of planning policy. If people cannot prevent open-cast coal mining, or have their view of it taken on board, that will send out a strong message to them that they will not have any say in future developments in their locality.
Greg Clark
No, the hon. Lady has got it wrong. We are talking about neighbourhood planning, but of course a whole panoply of other planning policy applies. There is absolutely no intention to remove the test of sustainability for mineral extraction or any other proposal, and that will be a matter for national policy. I do not underestimate in any way the importance of open-cast mining for the communities in which it takes place, but neighbourhood plans are not the mechanism to control it. I hope most hon. Members will see that.
Greg Clark
I will make some progress, and then perhaps my hon. Friend can come in again. I know that a lot of Members want to speak.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who made many helpful and constructive suggestions in Committee, has tabled two amendments. We will require the examiner of plans to take oral evidence if people want to submit it, but we will leave him or her to make the judgment about whether that is an attempt to delay the process or reflects a genuine appetite. Similarly, his amendment 12 is unnecessary because the Bill already allows prescribed steps to be taken in the examination of a neighbourhood plan, including the consideration of questions about participation. However, we will carefully consider whether an equalities impact assessment is appropriate.
On heritage issues, our amendments correct a misdrafting that seemed to put in doubt the protection that conservation areas and listed buildings receive in the neighbourhood planning process. That was never our intention. Happily, working with the heritage groups, we have been able to agree a set of measures that address that problem.
I wish to say a little about town centres, because I know that an amendment on the subject has been tabled. Policy on town centres has always been part of national planning policy, and I believe that is right. However, as I have done on the subject of sustainable development, I wish to signal clearly the importance of having robust policy, including the sequential test that is currently in planning policy statement 4. That will absolutely be in place, and it will be clear in the new national planning policy framework.
The Association of Convenience Stores wants, to its credit, to keep this issue live and in the forefront of our minds. I am happy that it does so, but it need have no concerns. This Government’s attitude to town centres is absolutely clear: they are at the heart of our communities and nothing should be done that would disadvantage them or jeopardise that.
Government new clause 15 deals with local finance matters, which has caused the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and his colleagues some concern in recent days. The proposal makes it clear that local finance matters that are relevant to planning considerations can be taken into account. It does not change the law in any way, and it is not some stealthy way in which to introduce a new basis for planning policy. Everyone knows that section 106 payments that are material in planning matters can be taken into consideration. The new clause reflects the fact that the introduction of the community infrastructure levy, and, potentially, other rebates to the local community, as I like to call them, can be used for planning purposes. It is important to be clear, lest there is any doubt on the part of local authorities, that such rebates, just like under section 106, can be made when they are relevant to planning considerations.
Amendment 369, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), suggests that CIL should be used more widely for housing and other local infrastructure. It is important that planning committees, which are sometimes nervous and conservative about such matters, are reassured that the use of the CIL for appropriate planning purposes is perfectly legitimate and that it can be taken into account in planning decisions.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister implies that there is no change in policy as a result of new clause 15, but may I remind him that until three months ago, his Department’s stance was that financial matters could not be regarded as material considerations? His Department’s response to the consultation on the new homes bonus scheme affirmed that the new homes bonus cannot change the position that financial matters are not to be regarded as material considerations. New clause 15 changes that completely, and changes the presumption that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, which has been in the planning system for years. That is an extremely dangerous move, and I am astonished that the Minister has come to it only after 35 minutes of his speech. He has dealt with a lot of detail, but he has not addressed the fundamental threat that new clause 15 poses to the integrity of the planning system.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured that the measure is not a fundamental threat. Rather, it is an incidental measure for clarification. As he knows, section 106 payments have always been taken into account. There is no change in the policy whatever. He misquotes the response to the consultation on the new homes bonus, which is as valid today as it was when it was published. The response states that
“the new Homes Bonus is not intended to encourage housing development which would otherwise be inappropriate in planning terms”
and that local authorities
“cannot take into account immaterial considerations.”
Therefore, local finance considerations, like any other considerations, should be taken into account only if they are material to the application that is being considered. Let me give an example to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if it is perfectly appropriate for a payment made under a section 106 agreement to be taken into account by the planning authority, it would be perfectly reasonable for the CIL, for example, to be used to provide investment in a road scheme that accommodates a development. If a planning authority considers that to be material, it is perfectly reasonable to take it into account. The measure simply clarifies that if payments other than section 106 payments can be used for matters that are material to the application, it is legitimate to take them into account.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister will have to do better. He should consider whether he is being absolutely open with the House about the significance of the change. The existing presumption is that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, and that financial considerations are not material. He will know that section 106 agreements are negotiated only after planning consent has been granted. There should be no question about that. However, he is clearly muddying the waters—his language implies that—and by making a financial consideration a material consideration, he is undermining the planning system. I urge him to reconsider.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman is disappointed that this is not the cunning plot that he sensed it might be. It is a straightforward clarification, and he needs to accept that it is not what he thought it was. It is a simple and straightforward clarification brought about by the fact that it has been suggested in the press that some of these payments cannot be taken into account. It is important that councils understand that, where it is relevant to the planning matter in hand—but not otherwise—they can continue to take it into account. That is no different from the present situation, and it is important to clarify that.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I would like to press the Minister on his response to my amendment 369. I will make my point by way of example: the Shard, being built by London bridge, will attract community infrastructure levy section 106 money, and the local authority might want to renovate the local council or housing association estates nearby, or to build new social housing. Will he assure me that the Bill will make that possible?
Greg Clark
New clause 15 clarifies that it is reasonable for a planning authority to take such funds into account if they are to be used in connection with the planning application. On the use to which the funds are put, I know that in Committee my right hon. Friend and the Opposition Front-Bench team considered whether the provision could be drawn more widely to include affordable housing. It has not been possible to draw up a definitive amendment in time for Report, but I am sympathetic to those concerns, so we will introduce further suggestions in the Lords.
Heidi Alexander
Earlier in his remarks, the Minister was quick to quote the Royal Town Planning Institute on the progress that he would say has been made on the duty to co-operate, so could he tell me, in relation to new clause 15, why the RTPI writes:
“The Government’s new amendment to make financial considerations a material consideration is deeply flawed and potentially very damaging to proper planning and contradicts assurances given by ministers just 12 weeks ago”?
What does he have to say to the RTPI?
Greg Clark
I have given clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that this is not what the RTPI perhaps suspected or what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich clearly suspected: that this was some grand plan to—as he put it—buy and sell planning permission. That is not the case. There is no change in the dispensation.
Greg Clark
I give way to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.
Mr Betts
I want to get down to practicalities. Given that these matters are now material considerations, is it not the case that when an application comes before a local planning authority, the officer of that authority will have a responsibility to explain in their recommendations precisely what financial considerations there are and how much will be gained by the authority and the community from granting the application? That is completely different from any present requirement on any planning officer to explain any financial matters before the planning committee makes a decision on an application.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister replies, I want to say that this is a very important point, and I am allowing the interventions to run longer than normal because of its complexity. Can we bear it in mind, however, that we still have a lot of business to get through?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. It is not required that the planning application should be determined on the basis of the financial flow. It is relevant only if it relates to the planning matter before the authority. For example, if the community infrastructure levy is to be used to pay for an access road, it is perfectly reasonable—this is clarified in the new clause—for that to be taken into account by the local authority.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the technical deficiencies in new clause 4 to me, and particularly for doing so at 9 o’clock this evening. However, aside from the technical deficiencies, what is the Government’s view of the principle? I can work on the robustness of the new clause if the Government can give me their view in principle.
Greg Clark
I will explain, although I will shortly draw my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that other Members want to speak. As my hon. Friend and all other members of the Committee know, my view is that we should move away from a system of planning by development control, where recourse is made to the Planning Inspectorate rather than local decision makers, which is how the future of our communities has been developed. I want fewer appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and more decided locally. Doing that means plan-making becoming a much more prominent part of the process. Neighbourhood plans and pre-application scrutiny—and, incidentally, neighbourhood plans becoming part of the development plan, even if the local authority disapproves —along with the abolition of regional imposition and the prevention of the inspector from simply rewriting plans are all geared towards making the plan prominent and, indeed, sovereign. When we are dealing with the legitimate concerns of communities that feel that developments that they do not want have been imposed on them, my concern is to strengthen their ability to control the process by participating in plan-making.
Greg Clark
I will continue to make a bit of progress, then I will certainly give way to my hon. Friends.
Taking away some of those appeals for determination by an undemocratic body, rather than by local authorities on the basis of a plan, is the wrong thing to do, and would also elevate the status of planning officers above members. Such an approach would essentially say to planning committees that they should either agree with their planning officers or risk facing an appeal. That is the wrong approach. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay will shortly see evidence in the national planning policy framework of my absolute intention to make plans sovereign, so that it is not possible simply to set aside democratically agreed local plans in response to particular pressures.
There is also a case for looking at the fact that the costs of losing appeals can sometimes hang over local authorities. Sometimes the threat of losing an appeal dissuades a local authority from turning down an application that it might want to turn down. We should look at that, to ensure that it will be possible for local authorities robustly to stick to their local plans.
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend will remember visiting my constituency to meet local residents who were fighting against unwanted developments in Micklethwaite and Menston. The logic of what he is saying seems to be that the appeal process should be evened up to deprive the developer of the opportunity to take their plans to appeal. Is that what he is proposing? One way or another, the plans should be equal between the developer and the local residents. On the basis of what he has just said, can he clarify whether he is going to stop developers having the right to appeal?
Greg Clark
I know that my hon. Friend withdrew an amendment proposing to deprive developers or property owners of their right to appeal. He will know, as a robust free-marketeer, that when planning consent was nationalised, it took away people’s opportunity to do what they wanted with their property, and that that became subject to the right of appeal. I think that that is a reasonable safeguard. I want to make the local plan clear and sovereign, so that it becomes the determinant of planning applications, so that they do not need to go to appeal.
George Hollingbery
In my little local town of Bishop’s Waltham, a supermarket is being built outside the local plan. Is the Minister saying that the sovereignty of local plans will be such that there will be no out-of-plan developments at all, even for supermarkets in small market towns?
Greg Clark
The combination of neighbourhood plans and local plans in the new system will be much more robust than at present. My hon. Friend can reasonably expect that they will govern the decisions that are taken. Too often at the moment, an appearance before the planning committee is merely the first step on the way to an appeal, and that is the wrong way to do planning.
I want briefly to refer to the amendments on betting shops tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I know from our conversations that he is very concerned about the proliferation of betting shops in his community and elsewhere. We announced in the Budget a review of how use class orders, relating to a change in use, are handled in the planning system. I will ensure that a specific part of that review deals with the very real issue in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and we will look at what can be done to make progress in that regard.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
When the Minister undertakes that review and looks into the issue, will he consider the fact that there are clusters of betting shops in many high streets, including Deptford high street in my constituency, and that they are crowding out regeneration and diversity of retail? This proliferation of betting shops is blighting many areas. He needs to take into account not only changes of use but the fact that there are far too many instances of this single type of operation being clustered in one street, which I am sorry to say attracts a lot of antisocial behaviour.
Greg Clark
I understand the right hon. Lady’s point. This is something that is reflected across the country. One aspect of neighbourhood planning will look at the character of high streets, in particular, to ensure a proper diversity of uses.
Greg Clark
I will not give way, because I want to conclude my remarks. We have only 50 minutes left, and a lot of Members wish to speak.
I hope that I have been able to cover the great majority of the new clauses and amendments in this group. I know that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will want to have his say, as well as Back Benchers. These measures represent a significant development in our planning procedures. They will correct some long-standing flaws, which have resulted in people not having an opportunity to have their say in plan making from the beginning. They will give neighbourhoods the opportunity to have their vision of the community promoted as part of the local development plan. I will conclude my remarks now, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I will speak to Opposition amendments 293 to 299, amendment 301 and new clauses 29 and 32; and I shall deal with some Government amendments.
On health, the Government gave not an inch in Committee, got it badly wrong and then paused for thought. On localism, the Government admitted in Committee that they had got it badly wrong. They committed to making changes and are now bringing forward 234 new clauses and amendments—more than the entirety of provisions in the original Bill.
There are some moves in the right direction. The Government have, for example, accepted our amendment to protect our national heritage and our great historic buildings, which was warmly welcomed by English Heritage. This Bill, however, like the Health and Social Care Bill, remains a bad Bill.
The Government have moved on the duty to co-operate, admitting that the original proposals did not go far enough. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), a decent man with an open mind, acknowledged to the Committee that the Government needed to strengthen the duty to co-operate and, in his words,
“to make it bite and to make it more encompassing than it is.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 15 February 2011; c. 599.]
The progress made, however, is extremely limited. It is clear that the Secretary of State, a man with a closed mind, sat on his Ministers—a fate too awful to contemplate. Since the Committee stage we have had additional changes to digest emerging from the Budget and those 234 new clauses and amendments. I am afraid to say that the sum total of the changes proposed is confusion, chaos and nothing short of a car crash.
Since taking power, the Government have moved at breakneck speed to demolish the planning system and to rebuild it within a matter of months. The demolition is nearly complete, with the end of sensible regional strategic planning, including the folly of the abolition of the regional development agencies and their replacement with local economic partnerships with no powers and no money—all because the Secretary of State gets out the clove of garlic and the cross at the very mention of “regional”.
As the dust settles, has it all been worth it? How does the Minister view the planning landscape? Are we about to see a new streamlined planning process delivering housing, economic growth, action on climate change and the environment, and transport and infrastructure while also empowering people? Are we going to see that rise from the ashes?
Jack Dromey
With respect, I took many interventions in Committee, but now that the Minister has taken the best part of an hour, I am determined to get through my remarks so that we can hear the maximum number of contributions from Back Benchers on both sides.
Ending up in a pickle, the Government have produced a system that is desperately unfit for purpose. It is important to remember the purpose of planning. Good planning is a vital tool for delivering the necessary development, while also delivering on sustainable development. Planning should integrate the needs of the economy with environmental and social goals to create sustainable communities and retain and enhance our cultural, historic and landscape assets.
We support any sensible reform. We accept that the system the Government inherited was, like any planning system, capable of improvement. We agree that increased local input by local people and local communities for the future of their areas and their built environment is absolutely vital to the success of any planning system. The reformed planning system, however, must be able to meet key tests and objectives. The system must be able to meet our growing housing need and in the right areas.
Jack Dromey
I intend to finish my speech soon, for reasons that I have already given. In a debate lasting less than two hours, a Minister spoke for the best part of an hour. I want to allow time for the maximum number of contributions to be made by Back Benchers.
Annette Brooke
I shall be very brief. I share concerns about Government new clause 15 even after the Minister’s assurances. If bringing financial considerations into the Bill is not going to make any difference, why include the measure? I am afraid that I have not got my head around that and I am very concerned that we do not have time to discuss this in depth and understand the impact of the change.
New clause 2, which is tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, was inspired by a report of the Environmental Audit Committee and we have tried to pick up on its main points. I sincerely believe that we need a definition of sustainable development in the context of the Bill and I share some of the concerns about how we can get the right balance between the pursuit of economic growth and making sure that economic growth is sustainable. Wherever that definition falls, it has to be in such a form that it can be developed downwards and interpreted by local communities, but also, in a sense, developed upwards within the national planning policy framework. That is quite a challenge. I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to accept what is in the new clause, but I hope that, as he is reflecting, he will also take on board some of the points that were made within the context of new clause 6.
On new clause 4, I welcome the Minister’s comments about strengthening the basis of local plans. Throughout my time as chairman of planning it was very frustrating when there were attempts to override the local plan and one felt that one had to give in under the threat of costs. At the back of my mind, I still think that there ought to be a community right of appeal as a backstop, perhaps on much more limited terms than in the new clause. Obviously, there is still time to reflect on that.
I remain concerned about the wording of Government amendment 160 and I hope that will be looked at.
Mr Lammy
Given what the Minister has said, I rise to speak to my new clauses 30 and 31. It cannot be right that there are nine betting shops on one stretch of high street in Green Lanes or that there are 10 betting shops within 300 metres of Ealing Broadway station. It cannot be right that there are 60 gambling establishments within just 300 metres of the pagoda in Chinatown. The gambling industry and bookmakers in particular are flouting the gambling rules; they are opening up right across London and it is unacceptable. That is not to say that we want to condemn gambling—I like to gamble—but it is to say that when it comes to diversity on the high street, local communities and local authorities should have the planning powers to say, “Enough is enough,” “No, thank you,” and “No more.” That is why I think, and I am supported by London councils on this, that betting shops should be in a sui generis class of their own in the same way as casinos and amusement arcades.
I shall force new clause 31 to a vote because I am not satisfied that the Minister is not just kicking this issue into the long grass. There has been a campaign by London Citizens and there is a continuing campaign by faith communities on the issue. Right across London, people are sick to death of seeing one betting shop after another.
It is a great shame that the old Hackney town hall has been turned into a Coral bookmakers. It is unacceptable that countless pubs across the country are being turned into bookmakers. That is the case for every single class use—A2, which is meant to be for building societies and banks, drinking establishments under A4, as has been mentioned, take-aways under A5, and restaurants and cafes under A3. That is why we need action, and why I had hoped the Minister would say that he accepted the amendment, as leaders of councils across London have requested. It is unacceptable to kick the matter into the long grass. I urge the Minister to think again.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
I shall speak briefly to new clause 5, which stands in my name. The new clause is designed to allow the Secretary of State to change, by order, any piece of planning legislation that is causing any planning authority problems in carrying out its statutory duties or where a particular piece of planning legislation is causing local public controversy. I appreciate that this is an extensive power for the Secretary of State, but I also propose, as part of the same amendment, a strong safeguard in that a variation in the law may be made only if it has been subject to a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
The need for such a power is evidenced by an issue in my constituency. Brighton Marina was built in the 1970s following the lengthy passage of the Brighton Marina Act 1968. The marina is located in an undercliff location on land that was reclaimed from the sea. From the coast road anyone looking at the marina can gaze downwards to see the boats, shops, restaurants, businesses and low-rise accommodation located there. For many years the 1968 Act has been taken to mean that any development above cliff height would be only for ancillary works, such as lamp posts and fencing.
However, in recent years, that has been challenged by proposals for housing development that would rise well above the cliff height. One such scheme was agreed by Brighton and Hove city council but not acted on, and one was turned down by the council. That refusal was sustained last year by my right hon. Friend on appeal, for which I am grateful. Both these developments were highly controversial and there was a clear difference of opinion between residents and the planning authority as to the intention of the 1968 Act. If my amendment to the Bill had been in place, that difference of opinion would not have occurred, because the legislation would have been crystal clear. Instead, we have had years of wrangling and uncertainty and still have no clear view of the meaning of the 1968 Act even now.
The thrust of the coalition Government’s policy is to simplify, eliminate and clarify the rules, regulations and legislation faced daily by the public and businesses. My new clause would add significantly to the practical implementation of that policy, and I commend it to the House.
Joan Ruddock
I shall speak to new clauses 30 and 31, with reference to Deptford high street in my constituency. It is one of the oldest and most historic in the country. Although the area is one of multiple deprivation, it has a diverse and vibrant community, a good retail offer and a thriving local market. In recent years we have seen a proliferation of betting shops, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who tabled the new clauses, described from his own constituency experience.
The problem in Deptford started with Coral, which took over a shop that had been used as an art gallery and café, and moved away only because it was so hugely successful that it needed bigger premises. There followed a succession of developments that took many of our most historic buildings and iconic pubs, such as the John Evelyn and the Deptford Arms.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Bill does not go far enough in protecting assets that are of community value from being transferred to the private sector and that this is something that the Government should have allowed time for us to debate properly tonight?
Joan Ruddock
I very much agree.
There have been the changes of use on Deptford high street that I have described, but at the same time there has been a determination to improve it, and after years of battling we secured the funds, with the co-operation of a Labour Government, for a new station at Deptford and we expected new development to follow. However, who will want to live where they will look out on such a high street? As local campaigner Sue Lawes has described, at No. 14 we have Better Betting, at Nos. 34 to 40 we have William Hill, at No. 44 we have The Money Shop, for payday loans, at Nos. 49 to 50 we have Ladbrokes, at No. 55 we have Paddy Power, at No. 60 we have Fish Brothers pawnbrokers, at No. 70 we have Coral and at No. 72 we have H&T pawnbrokers. The final straw is Betfred’s application to take over the old Halifax building. There the change of use would have been required because it was restricted specifically to use by a building society.
The council has of course turned down that application and said, quite reasonably, that there are already far too many betting shops in the area and that it is unnecessary. They say that within the designated core shopping frontage the number of betting shops has reached
“beyond an acceptable level, detracting from the range of retail services available within the defined District Town Centre”.
Betfred has of course appealed. We await the result of that appeal with interest.
I put it to the Minister that it cannot be acceptable that, in an area of great deprivation but great spirit, local residents, 700 of whom have signed a petition, have no say in what is done there. I suggest not only that local people must have a say, but that others need to be protected from this kind of proliferation. Surely this is a community that can ill afford to spend what little money it has in betting shops on this scale. I am not opposed to betting; none of us is. It is the cluster effect and the proliferation that must be dealt with, and I very much hope that he will see that that is done.
Philip Davies
I am surprised at the lack of faith that the right hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have in their own constituents, because betting shops of course go where there is a demand for them. If there was no demand for them on the high streets in Lewisham and Tottenham, presumably some of them would close down.
Philip Davies
No, because I do not have enough time.
The fact that these betting shops have not closed down indicates that the right hon. Member’s constituents want to use them, which makes them viable. I commend the right hon. Gentleman in particular for leading with his chin on this issue, because of course it was the Gambling Act 2005 that removed the unstipulated demand test. He was not only a member of the Government at the time, but in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which introduced the Act which he now finds so offensive. I hope that the Minister will resist the siren voices from the Opposition Benches calling on him to do something about the general principle of supply and demand, which I hope he, as a staunch supporter of the free market, will stick to.
I want to touch on new clause 7, which I have tabled, which relates to casinos. It would give all 600 local authorities fairly and equally the power to decide whether to allow the licensing of casino premises in their areas. The location of casinos was determined by legislation back in 1972, which identified 53 permitted areas on the basis of population data as it stood at the time and added a number of seaside towns. That information is now woefully outdated and denies many local authorities access to investment and jobs and unfairly constrains and confines legitimate and licensed businesses. Despite the emergence of new towns and new centres of population, there have been no changes at all to those permitted areas in almost 40 years. A casino licensed in an existing permitted area can move premises only within the same permitted area in which it was licensed; it may not even transfer to another permitted area, even if a local authority wants it. Those anachronistic and ridiculous constraints have enabled casinos, ironically given our previous discussion, to be crowded into outdated permitted areas. Through my new clause I do not seek to allow any more casinos in this country, even though I probably would not object to that in principle; the same limit would apply to casinos throughout the country. All my new clause would mean was that casinos were able to apply to be outside the existing 53 permitted areas, if local authorities wanted them. We would be giving every local authority the chance to have a casino in their area, if they want it, rather than sticking to outdated rules from more than 40 years ago.
Joan Walley
I will be brief, because there were many references to sustainable development not only in the Minister’s introductory comments, but in the speech that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made.
The Minister made what was effectively a winding-up speech at the outset, and I rather suspect that the whole debate about sustainable development will be discussed further in the other place, so I want to send the most powerful message that I can, stating that when that debate takes place we should not just be satisfied with legislation that relates to guidance or with a new framework policy document that might come out in the near future; we should make sure that Parliament defines sustainable development and sets it out clearly in relation to this Bill, in this Bill.
My amendment is supported not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Communities and Local Government Committee, but by Friends of the Earth, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Wildlife and Countryside League, the Woodland Trust, WWF UK and many more.
I simply say this by way of a message to the other place. The previous Parliament proposed that the Procedure Committee should allow the recommendations of Select Committees, when there has been a unanimous decision and report, to become material considerations as legislation goes through this place. Were that the case now, I have no doubt that it would have brought forward an opportunity to consider precisely what the Environmental Audit Committee’s short, sharp inquiry, which is tagged with today’s business, recommended—namely, that there should be a definition of sustainable development to allow for future progress, and that the Localism Bill should include a statutory duty to apply the principles of sustainability to the planning system and other functions of local government, and set out that definition.
We have not got that far with our modernisation of parliamentary procedure, but in the interim I genuinely hope that those valid concerns will be taken into account, so that we have not a whitewash but a means of balancing what many Opposition Members think, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, are now going to be financial considerations, giving developers free rein to do what they like, with the real principles of sustainable development.
Simon Hughes
I will be literally a minute, because many colleagues wish to speak. This is not quite the way I would have chosen to spend my birthday evening, but there we go.
I want to ensure that the Minister has not ignored my amendments 371, 372 and 370. The first two would require planning authorities to be more effective in their consultation on a planning application, and I suggest that within a quarter of a mile radius of the application site is a much more precise definition than just “the vicinity”.
I welcome the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and the fact that the arrangements will be taken back into a democratically accountable planning system. In the case of a big scheme such as the one that we may have coming down the track in Southwark for the great Thames sewerage main, I hope that we can still allow local authorities the ability to make the planning decision where there is a large structure in a borough on a particular site that is a unique part of the development. Of course there must be a bigger authority taking a strategic national decision, but where there is a local site of significance, the local authority should have a supplementary power to make that decision too. I hope that at some stage I will get positive noises from the Minister and that we might get appropriate changes at the other end of the building.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my amendments 11 and 12, which are to do with the right to be heard and equalities. It is very important that individuals and groups have the right to be heard in neighbourhood planning. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I think he was saying that there would be a presumption in favour of this, but I would be keen to see what criteria people will be using to guard against that happening for a mischievous purpose, or whatever. If the Minister is saying that there is a presumption in favour of oral representation where people want to take that option, that is very important.
On equalities, it is important, under the Equalities Act 2010, to demonstrate that certain people are under-represented in the decision-making process. In 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its first triennial review “How fair is Britain?”, which identified the decline in opportunities for individuals to contribute to decisions that affect their lives as a major risk factor in moving towards a fairer society. I think the Minister said that there is no need for concern about this but that he will consider it further and ensure that equalities legislation is operable in these terms. If that is the case, I welcome it.
Greg Mulholland
I will try to keep my comments brief; realistically, with four minutes to go, I probably cannot keep them any briefer. I know the age of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but I will not reveal it at this stage and just wish him a happy birthday.
I support a levelling of the planning process either by a third-party right of appeal or by the abolition of a developer’s right of appeal. Had the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend been one that would work, I would certainly have supported it. I have just been involved in a planning process in Adel in Leeds, where we had an absolutely farcical situation in which David Wilson Homes, the developer, withdrew its scheme halfway through an appeal, but the system still allowed it to reapply for outline planning permission, which it then got. That was an absolute farce—an entirely shoddy, underhand and anti-localist way of doing things. I want to bring that to Ministers’ attention.
On pubs, there has been a lot of talk about the Duck and Drake—the many Duck and Drakes in the country. There is no finer place to hold a neighbourhood forum than in a pub. However, in terms of what this Bill does to strengthen communities’ hands in protecting pubs, the most appropriate pub name would probably be the Hot Air Balloon. As I have said to Ministers before, I am afraid that there is very little in the Bill, as it stands, to give communities a greater say. At the moment, although there have been changes, it remains perfectly legal to demolish a free-standing pub without planning permission. The Bill does nothing to change the fact that a pub can become a restaurant, a café, a betting shop or a payday loans shop without communities having any say whatsoever. If the Bill is to do anything to strengthen the hands of local communities, there are simple ways of doing that that do not prevent pubs from being developed when they are genuinely unviable.
On behalf of the all-party save the pub group, I have put this question to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is the community pubs Minister, but I have not had an answer: do the Government, who claim to be a pro-pub Government, think it is right that profitable pubs that are wanted by their communities are being closed every single day? If the Government do not believe that that is right—I do not believe that any hon. Member in this House believes that it is—they must do something about it. I regret to say that at this stage, there is nothing in the Localism Bill that does that. I know that we will carry on this discussion, and I look forward to doing that and taking up the Minister’s offer of a meeting. However, at the moment, it is simply not good enough. If he, the ministerial team and the Government believe in pubs and in genuine localism, they must do more in this Bill. Otherwise, it will be a real opportunity wasted.
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
The senior Whip on duty says amen, which will doubtless be noted on the record.
Public Health Observatories
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the very important subject of the future of our public health observatories, which are an integral part of the national health service. They are responsible for public health intelligence work—collecting the evidence base and directing how different agencies work to improve public health. It might be useful if I give a definition of public health. The best definition I have been able to find is one from the World Health Organisation’s expert committee on public health administration that was published as long ago as 1952. It defined public health as
“the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health and efficiency through organized community efforts for the sanitation of the environment, the control of communicable infections, the education of the individual in personal hygiene, the organization of medical and nursing services for early diagnosis and preventive treatment of disease, and the development of the social machinery to ensure for every individual a standard of living adequate for the maintenance of health, so organizing these benefits as to enable every citizen to realize his birthright of health and longevity.”
The Association of Public Health Observatories represents and co-ordinates a network of 12 public health observatories in Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That body brings together joint public health intelligence work from all its organisations across the United Kingdom and Ireland and also works in collaboration with its counterparts across Europe. Without that range of high-quality and trustworthy knowledge, expertise and support from public health observatories, much of the work carried out by practitioners and, indeed, local authorities, policy makers and the wider community, would be carried out in the dark. That would, without doubt, result in a less focused and less effective service delivery. All that makes public health observatories central to both local and central Government health policy and decision making.
Public health observatories were set up to monitor the state of the public’s health and the causes of poor health and health inequalities, with the information being used by a range of organisations involved in providing health care, including the NHS. The White Paper, “Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation”, which was published by the Department of Health in 1999, proposed the establishment of the public health observatories that were then set up in 2000 by the Labour Government. The Association of Public Health Observatories was also established in 2000. That umbrella group provides a link between regional public health observatories and national arrangements. It comprises representatives from all the regional public health observatories, the Department of Health and other partners, and one concern that I wish to raise is the fact that its funding has been removed this year.
I hope that the Minister will accept that improving the knowledge and evidence base behind health care was a key element of the previous Government’s policy and was instrumental in making progress in tackling health inequalities. The changes outlined by the Health Secretary in the Health and Social Care Bill move us away from a co-ordinated health service towards a competition-based health service. The public health White Paper, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People”, published on 30 November 2010, set out a new structure for public health in England. Its aim was to shift the balance of responsibility away from central Government to local authorities. There has also been much greater emphasis on the need for people to be supported in taking more responsibility for their own health—the so-called nudge philosophy.
There are many public health issues that I would like to discuss but unfortunately do not have time to develop tonight because of the shortage of time. I want to press on and put some points to the Minister, particularly about public health observatories, and I hope she will have the opportunity to respond to them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Prevention is key to having a healthier nation and perhaps this issue should be reconsidered in the NHS review, as it might help to improve the nation’s health.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful for that and I agree. It is fundamental to have a solid evidence base on which to plan health interventions.
As I mentioned, the Government propose in the Health and Social Care Bill to transfer health improvement functions from PCTs to local authorities, and to create a new body, Public Health England, to be rooted in the Department of Health. Public Health England is expected to take on full responsibility for overseeing the local delivery of public health services, as well as dealing with national issues such as flu pandemics and other population-wide health threats from next year. The majority of public health services will be commissioned by local authorities. However, the revolution under way in the NHS is just as important to the future of public health in England.
The Bill, which proposes the abolition of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, raises more questions than it answers. The responsibilities currently held by PCTs could be moved to local authorities, to the Department of Health, to commissioning consortia or to the NHS commissioning board. How the important work of public health observatories will be safeguarded for the future is still unknown. The decision to divide public health responsibilities between the Department of Health and local authorities will fragment any cohesive approach to tackling health inequalities. Whether new commissioning consortia will carry out some functions is at this stage unknown.
There are further concerns about whether Public Health England should be outside the Department of Health to protect its independence. If it was placed within the NHS, perhaps as a special health authority, surely that would better meet the Government’s own aim, often stated, of liberating the NHS from political control.
The Minister will be aware of the response to the White Paper by the public health observatories in March 2011. That response calls for a sub-national level of organisation of Public Health England to be created, with sufficient critical mass to ensure that the outputs of Public Health England continue to be valuable locally as well as nationally. There are many examples where that is the case, not least in my own region, the north-east, where the public health observatory has done excellent work on addressing inequalities that affect people with mental health issues and inhibit their ability to access services. The lessons of that can be rolled out across the country.
The important work of the observatories over the past decade has been self-evident. On 24 June 2008 the health profiles for every local authority and region across England were published jointly by the Department of Health and the Association of Public Health Observatories, an organisation which, as I mentioned earlier, has lost all its funding. Using key health indicators, public health observatories were able to pinpoint national health statistics at a local level, providing valuable information to address health inequalities and improve health outcomes.
As the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), now the Deputy Speaker, noted, the importance of those statistics was
“to target local health hotspots with effective measures to make a real difference.”
In my constituency, Healthworks, an excellent clinic established in Paradise lane in Easington and opened by Sir Derek Wanless, is a prime example of how that information collected by the observatories was used to great effect to target the areas in greatest need.
The Association of Public Health Observatories, with the Department of Health, also published a health inequalities intervention toolkit to enable every English local authority to model the effect of high-impact interventions on the life expectancy gap. As far back as 1977, the Department of Health’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Douglas Black, was asked to produce a report on the extent of health inequalities in the UK and how best to address them. The report proved conclusively that death rates for many diseases were higher among those in the lower social classes. It acknowledged that the NHS could do much more to address the situation. It called for increases in child benefit, improvements in maternity allowances, more pre-school education, an expansion of child care and better housing. A further report was subsequently produced by Professor Peter Townsend. Indeed, only last week I attended a seminar, in which the principal speaker was Sir Michael Marmot, on the impact of cold homes on health outcomes. The report indicated that the cost to the NHS of illness resulting from poorly insulated houses and cold homes is £2 million a year.
Ian Lavery
The Marmot review, published in 2010, stated clearly, as one of its nine objectives:
“Economic growth is not the most important measure of our country’s success. The fair distribution of health, well-being and sustainability are important social goals. Tackling social inequalities in health and tackling climate change must go together.”
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that important and contemporary report. I completely agree with Sir Michael Marmot’s findings— and Marmite is also very good for public health. Building on the work of Professor Townsend and Sir Douglas Black, Sir Michael Marmot states as one of his recommendations:
“Action taken to reduce health inequalities will benefit society in many ways. It will have economic benefits in reducing losses from illness associated with health inequalities. These currently account for productivity losses, reduced tax revenue, higher welfare payments and increased treatment costs.”
I mentioned the economic benefits of insulating houses. It would be a real step forward if the Marmot report’s six principal recommendations were incorporated and linked to quality standards in the public health outcomes framework that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is working on.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the Black report, the Townsend report and the Marmot report, and I wonder whether Government officials and Ministers might in due course come to regard the Marmot review a little like Marmite—either loving it or hating it—in respect of its findings, because it is clear that the need to monitor what is going on in public health across the regions of England, such as the north-east, is vital for future policy developments.
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely. That is a critical issue. In some respects, the Government have taken their eye off the ball. I will develop that point a little later and would like the Minister to respond to it.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a clear and present danger of a reversal of health inequalities, which would be exacerbated by decisions taken elsewhere across Government. It is such an important issue, and one that I have long campaigned on. As someone who has worked in the health service and served on a local authority, I feel very passionately about it.
Remarkably, we are now considering proposals that risk losing our greatest weapon in tackling public health inequalities: evidence-based health intelligence. More recently, as my hon. Friends have noted, the Marmot review has restated the link between socio-economic factors and health, which are known as the wider determinants of health. One of the more serious threats to the future of public health intelligence is its future funding under the new arrangements proposed by the Government. In my view, the Secretary of State has shown little interest in the functioning of public health intelligence under these proposed structures.
Public health policies must take account of local circumstances as health inequalities remain stark, particularly in areas such as my constituency. For example, smoking-related deaths vary greatly across different parts of the country. Public health intelligence must drive public health practice. I appreciate that public health observatories self-generate revenue, alongside their Department of Health grant and moneys from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. They also have opportunities to gain commissions from universities and charitable organisations, but it would be extremely risky to proceed down the Government’s proposed route without the certainty of their core Department of Health funding, which I understand is to be reduced by 30% this year.
Staff and people associated with the service have reported to me that valued employees are already being laid off at the north-west public health observatory, which is based at Liverpool John Moores university, and there is a similar situation at the north-east public health observatory. Local authorities commission the majority of public health services from a ring-fenced budget. What assurances can the Minister give me on safeguarding through this hiatus—this period of transition—and for the long term under the new arrangements?
I also thank David Kidney, the former Member for Stafford, who is now head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, for his assistance in preparing for this debate. The institute has stated its view that Public Health England must be established with a degree of independence, a point I made earlier, and with the ability to oversee arrangements for collecting, analysing and disseminating valuable data for public health services.
In short, it is now time for Ministers to provide concrete assurances that the role of public health intelligence, the collection of the evidence base and, in particular, public health observatories will be safeguarded for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There are just over 10 minutes left, so is it by agreement that I call the hon. Member?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on raising this very important issue on the Adjournment. I, like everyone else in the Chamber, want to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the important points that he has made.
One reason why my hon. Friend’s debate is so important is that, amid all the public anger about the health service reforms, the effects on public health have not received the attention that they should have. Speaking as an east end MP, I must say that the information that the public health observatories produce is important in ensuring that whoever commissions services commissions for the population, not just for GPs’ lists. I live in an area where many communities are either not registered with a GP or in other ways socially excluded.
My hon. Friend has raised the important issue of health inequality, and it is easy to talk about that in the abstract, but we should reflect on the fact that this is 2011, because the life expectancy of someone in the richest part of Glasgow is 10 years more than that of someone in the poorest part, and if we take the Jubilee line tonight we will find that the people living at every stop from Westminster going east until Canning Town lose a few years in life expectancy. This is a very real issue and an indictment of our society. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising it, and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for raising the subject of public health observatories, and I should probably declare an interest, because my husband is a public health physician. Anybody who has an interest in public health knows how important the observatories are, but time is very short, and I will not get to all the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
The public health observatories have been around for more than a decade, and they produce a whole series of high-quality data. Annual health profiles, for instance, of local areas allow for those comparisons that are so important, and there is no doubt about the importance of reducing inequalities. The reports of Sir Douglas Black, Peter Townsend and more recently Sir Michael Marmot are all key documents.
It is important to remember that over the past decade or so health inequalities have become worse, but I point no fingers, because it is testament to the fact that it is extremely difficult to reduce inequalities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned several issues that contribute to that. There are a range of factors, not least changing people’s behaviour, which is not easy. The Government’s contribution of £12 million to the observatories is testament to how important it is that we get good intelligence. He will have read the public health White Paper, in which he will see our commitment to this. For the first time, we will ring-fence funds for public health.
The movement of public health into local authorities has been fairly widely welcomed. There are transitional arrangements that we need to get right, but it will be based on a direct line of sight from the Department of Health, as we need to bring some things together. We need clear responsibilities and a clear outcomes framework to ensure that local authorities give us what we need, with all that based on good and sound intelligence. Although the public health observatories have done a very good job, there are some areas—for instance, changing behaviour—where the intelligence is not good and we have not collected it together.
We want the data and evidence from the observatories to be used to improve the health of everybody, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, income or sexuality. The public health White Paper sets out a clear life-course approach to that. It is impossible to make these changes without good intelligence and information. Despite the wealth of data, the evidence of what works is not necessarily being used as effectively as it could be, nor is it as widely available as it could be, and it remains only part of the information that we need. In any system where there are numerous stand-alone organisations, there are always dangers of overlap and duplication, and we want to eliminate that as much as possible. In short, we want to move from a system where we have a complex web of information functions performed by multiple organisations towards a system where that information is fully integrated into the public health system.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not about one Department—the Department of Health—doing it alone, but about public health being absolutely everybody’s business. The difference can be made from the top to the bottom in Government and right across the different Departments; it is an issue for us all. If we are truly to make inroads into these very persistent, difficult to move inequalities in health, we have to approach it in that way. There is no question of losing the main functions of the observatories; on the contrary, in fact. By transferring those functions to Public Health England, we will improve how they are used.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have consulted for several months on the new public health system, and we are continuing to listen. It is very interesting to see what we are getting back, with a warm welcome for many of the changes. There are always anxieties about difficult periods of transition. We have convened a working group on information and intelligence for public health, which is chaired by the regional director of public health for South Central Strategic Health Authority, Professor John Newton. It has representatives from the Department, the Health Protection Agency, the public health observatories and the cancer registries, and it is meeting fortnightly to develop our approach to public health information and intelligence. This is an opportunity to get it absolutely right.
The future of the observatories is being very closely managed, and that includes their locations. Department of Health funding for the observatories has been agreed for 2011-12. Although there has been a reduction in the core contribution for each observatory, the Department of Health funding set aside as the core public health information and intelligence budget remains similar to previous years, and that will be supplemented by additional Department of Health grants, so overall funding will be about the same.
I should like to thank the north-east public health observatory for its contributions, including in relation to the national library for public health and the learning disability specialist observatory. Its strong strategic relationship with the academic sector through its host, the university of Durham, has been particularly beneficial. Officials in the Department are in regular contact with both institutions so that financial and other pressures are addressed as they arise. Like most of its counterparts, the north-east observatory receives income from the Department of Health, the NHS and others. I understand that it currently has a working capital of about £1 million, which is not insignificant.
The university’s human resources policies require it to alert staff at least six months before any changes in employment, which is important for staff at this uncertain time. We are making sure that the university is aware of the ongoing need for the observatory’s work, and hence its expert staff. It is important that we do not see any loss in that.
We are lucky in this country to have such a rich source of expertise. We must ensure that we maximise the benefit of that expertise, knowledge and intelligence. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for raising this issue and giving me an opportunity to say how much we value the work of observatories. Their functions remain indispensable, but they must adapt to the new system. We want to streamline the system and do what we set out to do, which is to reduce inequalities in health. We will base any action we take on sound evidence.
Ms Abbott
Will the Minister explain how, under the proposed system, we can make the free-standing GP commissioning consortia, some of which may be managed by private-sector organisations, pay attention in their commissioning decisions to the issues raised by public health observatories and others? It seems to me that without PCTs and other regional structures, it will be perfectly possible for the commissioning structures to ignore what public health observatories say.
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. In fact, we inherited that system. Time and time again, budgets for public health have been raided to meet short-term commitments. One point of ring-fencing public health funding is to ensure that public health is central to the work that the local authority does and that it informs the commissioning arrangements in a local area. It is not good having just one area looking at public health. We are ring-fencing that money and will have a clear outcomes framework that sets out what the Government expect.
We will ensure that the consortia have regard to the public’s health. When we say “public health” it can sound a bit jargonistic. We are talking about the public’s health and about reducing the inequalities that have dogged society up to now and which successive Governments have failed to reduce. We have to do something different. We are moving from a system in which public health got sidelined and in which the work of public health observatories, although valuable, was not mainstream, to a system where that work is brought into the mainstream and into the direct line of sight. All those who make commissioning decisions and all local authorities should hear the clear message from Government that public health is everybody’s business.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Social Care Services
(13 years, 7 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
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate this important subject, which is being discussed more widely around the country by families and individuals who fear for their future.
The Government will try to boast that they are providing extra cash for social care, but that is not how people out there see things. “Hardest hit”—that is how the thousands of disabled people who marched in the streets outside this place last week described themselves. One woman from Billingham in my constituency, who has been blind since the age of 18, was among those who made the long trek to Westminster, and she told me about her anxieties and the effect that the cuts will have on her life. She and the other demonstrators had every right to be angry; they will be the hardest hit by the Government’s proposed cuts to disability benefits and the hardest hit by the swingeing cuts to council services that began this year, with more to come over the next three years. That means four years of anxiety and dread for families and individuals whose way of life depends on services with an uncertain future.
Last year, adult social care services helped 1.7 million adults to do things that most of us take for granted. Those 1.7 million adults remember the Chancellor speaking of his £6 billion cuts to local government grants and saying:
“Not a single penny will come from the frontline services that people depend on.”
How hollow those words ring today. I am sure the Minister intends to refer to the £1 billion that the Government are giving councils over four years to spend on social care services and to the £1 billion that doomed primary care trusts are supposed to spend on them over the same period—cash they are expected to take directly from the health budget, which the Prime Minister claims to be so protective of.
The trouble is that even the Conservative-led Local Government Association calculates that £4.6 billion is needed just to stand still and to maintain services as they are today. The reality is that the £530 million of additional funding that the Government have provided for social care in their first year is dwarfed by the £3 billion that councils have had to cut. According to the Financial Times and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, £1 billion of that has been cut from adult social care.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Adult social care accounts for £1 in every £4 that my local authority in Nottingham city spends. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is inevitable that social care services will be affected when a local authority’s budget is cut by more than 16% in just one year, as Nottingham’s has been?
Alex Cunningham
It most certainly is. My hon. Friend says that social care accounts for £1 in every £4, and a 16% cut represents a considerable reduction in the amount available to spend on social care.
ADASS also concludes:
“savings on this scale simply cannot be achieved through doing the same things more efficiently or by trimming management costs”.
As for the money that has gone to PCTs, can the Minister tell us, hand on heart, that he has any idea how much of it will be spent on social care this year? Given the revolution unleashed by the Health and Social Care Bill, PCTs have had other issues on their mind as they have sought to protect services during a transition period that will see them abolished. More importantly, this transition period threatens to reverse the progress made on health and social care over the past few decades. I just wonder what guarantees there can be that we will have properly commissioned and funded care once PCTs have gone and have been replaced by consortia that do not have the expertise and understanding of our community’s wider health and social care needs.
Media reports just this weekend outlined the profits that some think can be made from the health and social care system, effectively taking hard cash from the front line. The Prime Minister’s senior adviser, Mark Britnell, told a New York conference attended by the giant private health care providers that dominate in north America that the changes over the next two years will provide a “big opportunity” for the profit-making sector. As I am sure hon. Members will know, no one can make profits without taking cash out of the system. I look forward to hearing what reassurance the Minister can give those who will be hardest hit. What is his guarantee that profiteers will not have their way with the NHS and related social care services?
I know that Ministers get fed up with MPs from the north highlighting the divisions in our country, but the BBC is highlighting them now. In a survey released last week, it identified a new north-south divide, with social care spending this year falling in the north while actually rising in the south, although I will question the value of that so-called rise later. The BBC’s findings reflect the differential impact of the cuts, with councils in the midlands and the north more reliant on central grants and thus hardest hit. The findings may also reflect demographic differences and the effect of falling property values on people’s ability to self-fund.
In the north, spending will fall by 4.7% in the current financial year alone. Then there are deprivation factors to be taken into consideration. Local authorities in the most deprived areas—many are in the north, but they are elsewhere as well—have the worst mortality figures and the highest incidence of long-term ill health, but they are suffering the deepest cuts in spending power. Front-loading the cuts means that huge changes must be brought in quickly, giving little time for consultation with staff and service users over the best way to minimise the impact on front-line services. That said, I would not like anyone to get the impression that things are rosy in the south. The 2.7% increase in spending in the south is about half the rate of inflation and does not keep pace with need. Nor will it be enough to prevent real people from losing real support—support that, in the Chancellor’s words, they depend on.
My main purpose in securing the debate, however, is to consider the human impact of social care cuts, not just to debate dry spending figures.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about funding. He briefly mentioned the issue of commissioners and quality, which is clearly as important as funding. Does he share my concern that the changing role of the Care Quality Commission, which will now monitor providers rather than commissioners, will mean that there is a gap and therefore a risk that commissioners will not be held to account and provide good-quality care?
Alex Cunningham
Yes, I agree that there is a considerable risk. I should say that I have been much impressed by the role played by local authorities in health scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will answer the hon. Lady’s question directly later.
The successful judicial review against Birmingham city council’s adult social care cuts looks set to be hugely significant. The Minister might be tempted to hide behind a carefully drawn veil of localism, but does he really consider it acceptable that Birmingham should seek to withdraw support from 5,000 people? Many of those people could be in a situation where abuse or neglect have occurred, or will occur, or they could be unable to carry out the majority of their personal care or domestic routines. They will be the real losers in all this.
Does the Minister consider it acceptable that 2,145 elderly and vulnerable people in Lancashire will have all care and support removed, as part of cuts that are the subject of another judicial review? Does he consider it acceptable that desperate families are being forced to go to the High Court to try to prevent devastating damage to their quality of life or that of family members?
In West Sussex, the “Don’t Cut Us Out” campaign has brought people together to campaign against eligibility cuts. If Members visit its website, they can read testimony from Tony, who has limited mobility. He must carry an oxygen cylinder wherever he goes and he is susceptible to blackouts and periods of deep depression. He will lose all the benefits and support currently provided by West Sussex county council. He says:
“My current care package...provides for 13 hours of care support each week and has kept me out of hospital for much of the last two years, saving the Country hundreds of thousands of pounds. Before, I was in hospital for six months at a time, and once discharged was being re-admitted every two weeks or so. I can’t imagine what my life will be like without this support.”
Back in the north, local people, service users and staff have been campaigning to halt the closure of Leeds crisis centre and the threat to mental health day services in Armley and Hunslet. At a packed campaign meeting organised by Unison, a campaigning trade union of which I am proud to be a member, a service user said, “I am saving the council money by using these services; when living in London, where there weren’t these services, I had many hospital admissions; I have had none since living in Leeds.”
Mencap provided me with a graphic example of what the cuts mean for George and his daughter, who are from Rotherham. George’s daughter has profound and multiple learning disabilities. Due to her disability, she is doubly incontinent and requires the use of many disposable items of medical equipment. She lives with her dad, and as part of her care package, the council picks up all body and medical waste from the household. The waste includes faeces, urine, blood and vomit. Mencap says that Rotherham council has gone from collecting the hazardous waste once a week to once every 14 days and has reduced the amount that it picks up by 50%. The council has also stopped providing specialist waste bags for the disposal of the waste, leaving the family to cover the additional cost themselves. That bodily waste now goes into black bin bags mixed with household waste, which are sent to landfill. These stories illustrate the fundamental truth: these cuts are a false economy with devastating human, social and economic costs.
In a recent national survey by a group of charities, including Carers UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, half the respondents said that increased charges for care meant that they could no longer afford essentials such as food and heating, and more than half said that their health had suffered as a result. We must consider the services run by voluntary organisations—dare I say it?, the big society—that offer early help for people who do not necessarily qualify for assessed council support. Day care centres, meals on wheels, support groups and drop-in centres are being cut because they are losing grant funding.
Jackie Dray used to run four support groups called “Elders with Attitude”—I love that name—in Birmingham, but she was told in March that her £30,000 council grant was to be cut altogether. She now runs only one group and is desperately looking for alternative funding. She said:
“They are cutting luncheon clubs or groups like mine that could make a difference between somebody remaining in the community or sinking into clinical depression and residential care. For a small amount of money, you could delay the point at which people have to go into hospital. I see a lot of clinical depression in carers and cared-for alike. People are teetering on the brink. There’s a lot of frustration, worry, lack of sleep.”
Before we can consider the future of social care services, we have to consider the consequences fully.
While we await the Dilnot commission report on long-term funding and the Government’s response to the Law Commission review, the Government are, in effect, already re-engineering the infrastructure of care and support. As services are razed, my fear is that capacity is being lost, services are being withdrawn and staff are being lost—capacity and skills that cannot easily be recreated. The Government are seeking to soften people up and lower their expectations, to get them to accept a return to reliance on family and buying from the open market with their own funds, or a patchwork of precarious charitable provision from a third sector suffering its own cuts and challenges.
I want to turn to the ideal, which I thought all the parties shared, of personalisation in adult social care. I fear that that ideal is being lost. The cuts mean that the policy, which promised much, is fatally undermined. Social workers and care managers tell their union that they are being expected to reassess personal budgets with a view to cutting them. I know that they need to consider value for money for all care packages, but they believe that they are expected to make cuts to get the budgets down.
A forthcoming report on a survey that Unison conducted with Community Care will highlight the fact that the paperwork and bureaucracy associated with personal budgets is excessive and inaccessible for service users. I question the Minister’s decision to prescribe from Whitehall that personal budgets be provided in the form of direct payments. That appears to be at odds with his claim to be a champion of local determination and removes choice from people who wish to have a managed budget. It appears to be linked to the aim of completely withdrawing state provision. Individuals will be expected to navigate the market or take on what many will see as the onerous and stressful responsibility of becoming an employer. I urge him to reconsider the prescription of direct payments, as there is evidence that it will restrict choice, but more importantly, distress some of our most vulnerable people, who already have enough challenges in life.
As we contemplate the future of adult social care services, there can be no under-estimating the scale of the challenges that we face as a society: by 2041, the number of adults with learning disabilities, we are told, will have risen by 21%; the numbers of young people with physical or sensory impairments by 17%; and disabled older people by a massive 108%. We all know that the number of dependent older people is set to increase hugely. The Association of British Insurers says that currently 20% of men and 30% of women will require long-term care at some point. If we add to that the challenges of the increasing number of young adults with complex needs who will need very expensive care packages for decades; the 170,000 people with a learning disability who Mencap tell us live with parents and carers who are already over 70 years old; the growth in the number of people with dementia, which the Alzheimer’s Society says is set to soar by a third to 1 million people by 2025; the costs facing authorities due to alcohol misuse; and the number of people with obesity-related problems, then we can see that the Government’s proposals are destined to fall well short of what is needed.
The director of children, education and social care for Stockton-on-Tees borough council, which serves people in my constituency, says that we have to be mindful of the knock-on effect of the reduction in other funding streams that impact on adults—the independent living fund, the Supporting People programme and affordable housing funding. She tells me that some of the funding streams that have historically been linked with it are being reduced or ceasing, while her department works to maximise people’s independence.
Lilian Greenwood
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that these cuts come alongside the cuts to disability benefits outlined in the Welfare Reform Bill, in which Ministers talk about targeting those in greatest need? Is not there a danger that disabled people with moderate needs could lose all support and face isolation and a loss of independence?
Alex Cunningham
That is very much the case. A stream of people have come to our surgeries or to see us in Parliament, and there seem to be so many attacks—left, right and centre—on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. As my hon. Friend says, something needs to be done if we are to arrest this situation.
The director of children, education and social care for Stockton-on-Tees borough council says that the result of the cuts, if we have limited extra care and supported living options, will be a further over-reliance on residential provision. An integrated health and social care facility and extra care scheme in Billingham in my constituency was an important part of my council’s strategy for supporting people, but the Government refused the private finance initiative credits to make it happen. Would the Minister prefer his granny, mother or other elderly relative to be forced into residential care when they could have been supported in their own home or an extra care facility and had the independence that I know most older people want?
Another area of concern is the shortfall in funding to support carers. Yes, I know that the Government allocated a welcome £400 million for carers’ breaks, but other funding managed by PCTs to support adults and their carers is not ring-fenced in any way, and although some flexibility is needed, carers, who are often seen as the poor relation, could end up all the poorer.
The sector skills body estimates that the social care work force needs to double by 2025, yet it is a sector characterised by labour shortages, low pay, poor prospects and a poor image. Some 60% of care workers hold no care qualifications, and only 20% have a national vocational qualification level 2; only 10 % have an NVQ level 3. Before anyone intervenes on that point, I should say that I believe that previous Governments, including our own Labour Government, could have done more to address that issue. However, it is not just Governments’ responsibility; other organisations, including service providers, should play their part in driving up qualification standards and meeting the costs.
Is the provision made by such organisations being properly managed or being left to the market? In Stockton, we have over-provision of residential care places, some of which are under financial pressure, including those owned by Southern Cross, which is seeking £100 million from investors to secure its future. Surely we need some kind of controlled management or strategic planning to get this right and ensure that standards are maintained.
We must look to the future of adult social care. We need immediate action to lay the groundwork for genuine reforms to flourish. The Chancellor said that his cuts would not touch front-line services; he should be prepared to say that he got it wrong. There is an urgent need for a new plan that looks again at the local government settlement and works with local authorities to ensure that front-line services are funded to meet need. Everybody agrees that we must do more to give early help because it prevents dependence and saves money on acute care, and yet those services are first in line for the chop. Will the Minister genuinely and strenuously consider the recommendation of a duty to provide early help for adult services such as that which Professor Munro made for children’s services?
The Minister must reconsider the equation of personalisation with the transaction of receiving direct payment. Personalisation is not about ticking boxes and having the right number of people receive direct payment. Trying to make it work in the context of the cuts requires him to spend time talking to practitioners and service users about what is happening on the ground and what they think the priorities should be. We need to get it right for individuals.
We need an improved and comprehensive work-force strategy covering training, development and qualification standards as a condition of provider registration and a commitment to working towards a living wage for all care workers. We must work with work-force representatives to boost the autonomy and confidence of practitioners. I am sure that the Minister will welcome, as work-force regulators have, Unison’s duty of care handbook for health and social care staff. The handbook aims to promote awareness among workers of their duty of care and other professional duties, and of how to raise concerns about poor practice.
Costs, too, need to be addressed urgently. The Association of British Insurers says that the average cost of care in residential homes in the UK is approaching £25,000 a year, with people in England spending an estimated £420 million a year on private home care. This question was not sensibly debated during the general election. We need cross-party co-operation to reach a long-term sustainable solution to the problem.
Anne Marie Morris
The hon. Gentleman raises a question about care homes and fees. Does he agree that one way to solve the problem would be to introduce a standard contract? At the moment, there are great differences in provision; there is no consistency in standards, which means that one person’s care can be very different from another’s.
Alex Cunningham
During my time I have visited many care homes, and I have seen many variations in quality and standards. I have seen some places where elderly people were highly motivated and excitedly engaged in activities and others where people were sitting in seats glued to the television—at least, I think that they were glued to the television; they certainly seemed to be in another world. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need a solution of exactly the sort that she outlines.
There is an overwhelming desire to end the postcode lottery for care. It is important that when people move around the country, they should receive the same standard of care without their cases being constantly reassessed. Recommendations made by the Law Commission for national eligibility criteria and carer assessments are a start in plotting a way forward. We must end the cost-shunting and turf wars between health and social care over continuing care assessment and funding. Do the Government still intend to allow the Law Commission to draft a Bill to simplify the legislation, and if not why not?
When Dilnot reports, we need to hear from Ministers a genuine commitment to cross-party engagement on long-term funding. The Minister must realise that a voluntary insurance market, like that described by the Prime Minister’s senior adviser this weekend, will not be acceptable to a public worried about the workings of the discredited financial services sector.
As well as a new funding system, we need to review the quality standards of service regulation, with greater emphasis being placed on the importance of providers having a stable, highly skilled and confident work force. The quality of care is all about the quality of relationships, but for as long as we have a 25% turnover of care staff we are letting down the hardest hit, who deserve much better.
The future of social care and its funding is not a matter only for this generation or this Government. We all have a responsibility. I hope that the Minister accepts that the Government should not go it alone, but should work with everyone involved to find the kind of long-term solution that will help to ease the anxieties of an increasing number of disabled and elderly people.
I end with a question for the Minister. If we are all in this together, why is it that adult social care is the hardest hit? Is it not the case that the most vulnerable are taking a disproportionate hit? I hope that the Minister will accept my points and other constructive points made during this debate, and that he will answer our specific questions. He should reflect on the unfairness of what is going on. He should realise that despite all the statements, funding is not meeting today’s needs and that current plans will not address the increased demands of the future. I hope that he will tell all those who receive adult social care services that he will make changes to current and future plans to ensure that the most vulnerable have a quality of life that most of us take for granted.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Brady, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this morning’s debate, which concerns an incredibly challenging and complex matter.
I am concerned that few Government Members are here today, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on attending. That makes me think that we are not all in this together, and it seems that only Opposition Members wish to represent their constituents on this matter.
I wish to contribute to this debate specifically on the standard of care being provided to vulnerable elderly people. I recently participated in a series of hard-hitting reports by Tyne Tees Television’s “North East Tonight” programme. Tyne Tees’s findings on the standard of care provided in some care homes in the north-east were distressing and disturbing, and I am pleased to have the opportunity today—again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate—to highlight some of those concerns and present them directly to the Minister.
I must point out that there are some fantastic care homes in the north-east and that they have some dedicated staff and carers. However, the “North East Tonight” reports were timely, being broadcast in the same week that a paper by Newcastle university’s institute for ageing and health predicted a care home crisis unless there is major investment in the care system to support the rapidly increasing number of elderly people.
In 2010, there were 2.6 million people aged over 80, but by 2030 that figure is expected almost to double to 4.8 million, with one in five needing regular care. The Newcastle university paper predicted that there will be an 82% increase in the number of care home places needed—that is 630,000 extra places between now and 2030 just to cope with the demands of an increasingly older population.
In its investigations, Tyne Tees uncovered reports of former care-home workers who were forced to leave their jobs. Those workers were given bad references, which make future employment in the sector difficult, because they had blown the whistle on the unacceptably poor standards of care. That included lifting the lid on cases of dangerously poor hygiene, of residents not being fed properly, of a lack of interaction between staff and residents and of a total lack of stimulus for the people living there. The investigation also uncovered cases of appalling neglect of vulnerable care-home residents—according to relatives, it was often because there were simply insufficient staff on duty to ensure that their loved ones’ needs could be properly taken care of.
Tyne Tees also reported that many relatives were afraid of reporting concerns about the quality of care being provided, because they thought that it might put their loved ones in greater danger. It is understandably difficult to complain about the poor standard of care being provided for a relative when, in the first instance, the complaint has to be made to the people who are providing it.
Tyne Tees invited me to view its findings. What immediately struck me, as a mother of young children, was the contrast between the standard of care provided to young children in child care settings and the standard of care provided to vulnerable elderly people in care homes. If Tyne Tees had uncovered similar cases of neglect and fear of whistleblowing in nurseries in the north-east, I am sure that there would have been a national outrage, and rightly so, yet the treatment of older people is too often shamefully brushed under the carpet.
The Tyne Tees series of reports received unprecedented feedback through e-mails and Facebook comments, and people wrote to Tyne Tees to back up its findings and report similar concerns. That shows the level of concern across the north-east—and, I am sure, across the country—about the situation.
I recently had to intervene in support of a family seeking help for Jessie Wiseman, an elderly constituent. She is 91 and blind, and she was found living in squalor after ambulance workers paid a routine visit to her property. Despite concerns having been raised by her GP and her son about Jessie’s deteriorating condition, social care workers failed or act and she rapidly declined. That is why I welcome the recommendations in the recently published Law Commission report to introduce a set of statutory principles, a statutory basis for adult safeguarding boards and a duty on councils to assess carers and investigate adult safeguarding cases.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the failings in adult care have gone on for a long time, because, unlike child care, it has never had a statutory basis? In arguing for such a basis to be put in place, we may find that the Government say that this is just more red tape and bureaucracy.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree that that is a great concern, which is why the Minister must take on board the deep concerns that are being expressed today. In any event, reforming the law will still not be enough.
I am pleased that, as a result of the Tyne Tees investigation, the Care Quality Commission has agreed to review its reports and to conduct unannounced assessments on the homes in question. However, I am concerned that it appears to have required a television programme to spur the Care Quality Commission into action. By placing their loved ones in residential care, people are putting huge amounts of trust in a service. They rightly expect that the Care Quality Commission is adequately monitoring, regulating and inspecting all care homes on a frequent basis.
Anne Marie Morris
The hon. Lady has made some extraordinarily good points, and the Care Quality Commission certainly needs more help to do an effective job. Now that we have an outcome-based set of performance criteria, homes need to be given guidance on how to comply with them. In my meetings with the Care Quality Commission, it says that it no longer gives advice, which means that it is an uphill battle for any home to ensure that it provides the quality of care that is needed and that it complies with the new criteria.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree that the Care Quality Commission should take a proactive approach to improving the quality of care in our adult services.
Another worrying statistic is that on-site inspections in care homes have fallen by 70% since the Care Quality Commission was introduced in October 2010. That must worry anyone who lives in a care home or who has a loved one in a care home.
Will the Minister consider the following issues because they are crucial to the future provision of social care services? What further steps can the Government take to ensure a much greater level of protection and safeguarding for vulnerable elderly people in residential care? What measures will he take to ensure that the culture of fear that was spoken about by people participating in the Tyne Tees reports is broken down, so that care workers, relatives and residents feel confident and safe in raising concerns about the standard of care? What steps is he taking to improve the status, pay and training of care home staff, who are doing an incredibly difficult and important job? How will he ensure that the swingeing cuts to local authority budgets over the coming years do not detrimentally impact further on the quality of social care being provided to elderly people, particularly at a time of ever-increasing demand?
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate, which is timely not just because of the demonstrations that we saw outside this place last week, but because we are in the pause before the Health and Social Care Bill comes back to Parliament. This debate is also a matter of great personal passion. In 1989, thanks to the behaviour of a previous Tory Government, I lost my job in the coal industry and had to take up a job in care. Although I ended up in that sector almost by mistake, it was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I met some fantastic people who were dedicated to taking care of the frail and vulnerable people in the city that my hon. Friend represents. Sadly, in the early 1990s, a lot of that care, commitment and dedication was lost. A series of cuts from the national Government decimated the care services across the whole country, and we see the same happening today.
I hope that the Health and Social Care Bill will be withdrawn in its entirety. Despite what they say, it is clear that the Government are leading us to a privatised NHS. The experience of social care should show us what happens when we put services out to the private sector. We are told that the White Paper has been delayed. There may be some last-minute qualms from the Government about how far they can go against public and professional opinion. I am surprised that the pause has happened now, because public and professional opinion has always been against this Bill, even when it was first announced. Perhaps that opinion took a while to sink into the minds of the Government; it certainly did not immediately sink into the minds of the Liberal Democrat members. It clearly has now, and thank God for that. I hope that the Minister, along with his colleagues in his party, will work with other people across society to ensure that the Bill does not go any further and that we do not see the same damage to the health service that we have seen to the social care services.
Research carried out by Unison suggests that, if recent trends continue, the last council-run residential care homes will have closed in 15 years’ time and there will be no local authority-employed home care staff left by 2020. That is part and parcel of this Government’s drive not just to boost the private sector but to deconstruct public sector provision and give councils less and less responsibility. The anti-public sector phalanx in the Cabinet will, I am sure, be happy to see that happen and it will celebrate the disappearance of council-run services. It will argue that the private sector always performs better, despite the fact that that has not been shown to be the case.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is talking specifically about local authority provision of care homes. Is it not more important that we invest in extra care facilities and that we work with elderly people so that they can live in their own homes, because that is what the vast majority of them want to do?
Mr Anderson
I agree with my hon. Friend. My own personal experience was in a purpose-built site that did just that. We took in people for a week at a time for respite and we also provided day care, but the individuals all lived in their own homes. Although that was cost-intensive in labour terms, the quality of care was good. We took care of not just the individual but the needs of the family, and we built very close working relationships with them. If we want to have quality care in this country, we must bite the bullet and accept the fact that we have to pay for it. The previous Government accepted that if we wanted quality health care, we had to increase the public payment into it.
Catherine McKinnell
In my contribution, I highlighted the worrying case in my constituency of Jessie Wiseman whose care at home was contracted out to a private care provider. Some 15 visits took place over eight weeks before she was discovered in an appalling state. However, the local authority took no responsibility for it. This story feeds into the debate on the worrying trends that can take place when services of this nature are put out to the private sector.
Mr Anderson
The privatisation of home care services in this country has been a complete failure and a nightmare. I have represented home care workers for many years and have seen the service deteriorate. We had a dedicated work force who had a set list of clients whom they went to see day in, day out. They built a relationship with that person and their family. When those jobs were contracted out, it was said, “We will send worker A on this day and worker B on that day.” The home care worker lost that direct link with not just the family but the wider team within the authority. That team would work together and take a holistic view and work better for the person concerned. It is clear that services are being contracted out to save money. If we save money, services will not be as good.
It is clear that we will see problems being stored up if we lose public sector capacity in home care services. At the moment, some 31,000 residents are being taken care of by Southern Cross Healthcare. Their homes now hang in the balance as a result of reckless business practices and local commissioning, which has allowed the organisation to become so dominant in the market. Southern Cross and Four Seasons—the big two in residential care—have operated casino-style finances, and both are now teetering on the brink of collapse. A toxic cloud, formed by irresponsible borrowing, weakening demand, council cuts, the slump in care home property values and the collapse of favourable credit facilities, now hangs over the heads of frail elderly people and their families at a time of insecurity and when they need real security.
How has it come to this? How has RBS, a state-owned bank, become the biggest shareholder in Four Seasons in exchange for writing off debts of £300 million? Would taxpayers’ money not be better spent directly on care homes run by democratically accountable councils, rather than being tied up in byzantine financing arrangements?
Across the social care market, research by Community Care suggests that one in five providers expect to go out of business in the next financial year. The regulator describes the home care market as a cottage industry of small, often barely viable providers alongside a few giants such as Care UK, whose chairman kindly provided £21,000 to fund the personal office of the Secretary of State for Health—perhaps that is one reason Care UK is doing so well.
If Southern Cross, Four Seasons or indeed local providers collapse, how will local authorities find new homes for people when they no longer run them? When home care providers default, as they often have and might in future, how will local authorities fill the gap if they have scrapped their own home care teams, which is happening up and down the country?
What about the quality? Care Quality Commission data show that privately provided care services are less likely to be rated “good” or “excellent” and five times more likely to be rated “poor”. I know that the Government do not like targets or standards, but when their own commission is saying such things its message should be listened to. Private providers consistently score lower on a range of indicators of quality and safety. When we look at the employment practices of some providers, we cannot be surprised that home care workers do not stay in their job. They are not paid for their travel time between visits, and they have to provide their own mobile phones and pay for their uniforms. They suffer from underpayments; they often have zero-hour contracts; and they sometimes have to pay towards the cost of administering their own time sheets. No wonder people do not see it as a job for the future or a career that it is worth investing their time and talents in. We need real regulation of employers to stamp out employment practices that have impacted so badly on home care users and, through them, on staff.
Where are we today? We have a Government who want more from staff for less; who want more work by fewer staff, because they are making 500,000 public sector workers unemployed; who want more pension contributions from less pay and for poorer pension provision; and who want people to spend more time at work by making, in particular, women work until they are 66 years old, with less time at home and in retirement.
What did we get last week? The Chancellor has a new red tape initiative. What is he going to do when people are losing their jobs? If there is a chance of redundancies being managed sensibly, what does he talk about? He wants more chances of people being sacked, with less chance of real support by limiting the time to consult. People will have more chance of being made redundant and less legal support to challenge decisions taken by their employer.
The CQC sees a vacuum in regulation and in the checking of safety and quality of care. The CQC’s risk-based approach is resulting in a dramatic drop in inspections. A freedom of information request by Community Care found a 70% drop in CQC site inspections in the past year alone, at a time when more people are in need of care.
Anne Marie Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. The statistics are interesting, but care homes in my constituency of Newton Abbot complain that more visits are being made. I spoke to the CQC just this week and it said that it was making on-site visits to every home within its purview in the south-west. There might be a regional difference, but in the south-west, where there are a huge number of elderly people, the number of visits is going up, not down.
Mr Anderson
I thank the hon. Lady for that. More inspections are good: we want inspections that work; otherwise, we will get into the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned.
Staff and service users fear that there is an over-reliance on provider self-assessment and secondary sources rather than direct inspections. There are fewer indicators and data sources for adult social care providers than there are for NHS providers, yet the methodology is common. Alongside a “lighter touch” approach from the regulator, local authorities are cutting quality assurance departments, which, as Community Care showed, means fewer local checks on the quality and safety of care being provided.
Some of the changes that the unions and workers at the CQC would like to see, which I agree require serious and urgent consideration, include reinstating and strengthening the requirements on the types of incidents and issues that must be reported to the regulator. These should again include medication errors, significant injuries, accident and emergency admissions, safeguarding referrals, matters where staff are subject to disciplinary action or dismissal and unusually high staff turnover. Those are all indicators of things that might be going wrong, but they are not being recorded as they should be. A minimum frequency should be set for how often a service is visited.
I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is correct about the experience in the south-west, but it should be replicated across the country because it would give people greater confidence that things were being done properly. There should be a greater range of tools so that service users and employees can make their concerns known to people who can affect outcomes. We want to encourage people who want to blow the whistle where necessary, and give people whose relatives are in care confidence that, if they make a genuine complaint, the care will not be reduced.
I hope the Minister will look at my points, provide answers on the failures of private adult social care providers and say whether anything can be done to make the CQC more representative. For years, adult social services have been regarded as the Cinderella service, which is a disgrace. People are in care not because they want to be but because they have to be, so I hope we will work together to try to make adult social care something this country can be proud of.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate on an issue of huge importance to many of our constituents, who are among the most vulnerable in society, including older people, disabled people and carers—people for whom adult social care services are an essential source of support in their daily lives.
My hon. Friends have eloquently and passionately articulated the real and serious concerns about adult social care services, but I want to focus on the importance of the social work profession in building adult social care services fit for the future.
Labour Members are pleased that the Government have proceeded with the work that Labour started on reforming the social work profession, and I welcome the Government’s decision to continue to support the work of the Social Work Reform Board. As a consequence of cuts to budgets for adult social care services, it now feels as though the very future of social work with adults is under threat. Councils across the country are proposing deep cuts to the number of registered social workers they employ, to be replaced with a range of staff employed in roles such as care co-ordinators and support workers. I know that the staff are committed and caring, but, like my hon. Friends, my concern is that this restructuring is prompted not by seeking to improve the quality of care but by the need to reduce spending on salaries. Like my hon. Friends, I am fearful of the consequences of this loss of capacity. It represents a serious loss of skill and expertise in the work force, at a time when people’s physical, mental and emotional needs and family dynamics are becoming ever-more complex.
It is hard to escape the impression that social workers in adult services are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, the Cinderella service—the poor relations. The media attention given to tragic deaths of children as a result of abuse has served to sharpen public focus on children’s social work, but the consequences of social workers in adult services being poorly managed, supported, valued, trained and developed are just as critical, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) pointed out. Excessive case loads, defective IT systems and too much paperwork are also facets of adult social workers’ daily lives, and they get in the way of those workers’ ability to practise effectively.
The Government have said that they have given the Children’s Workforce Development Council £79.9 million for social work initiatives in 2011 and 2012. There is work to develop an advanced professional status in children’s social work to enhance the development of those who want to progress in front-line practice rather than in management, and the Munro review of barriers to direct social work with children and families has come up with some excellent recommendations—all to be welcomed. Does the Minister understand, however, that the lack of similar investment and activity in adult social work is leaving practitioners feeling overlooked, and has knock-on consequences for morale and future recruitment and retention? What plans does he have to address those concerns?
My trade union, Unison, represents 40,000 social workers and has developed a 10-point plan for social work within adult services. I support its call for a “clear political commitment” through “policy and regulation channels”:
“to strengthen the role of social work in adult services”
covering the
“central importance of social work in care and support of adults, and…halting the development of ‘social work on the cheap’.”
Is the Minister willing to give such a commitment?
A survey last year of social workers in adult services found that two thirds of respondents felt that the time they had available to spend with each service user was not sufficient to meet their needs, and that nearly a quarter felt that the time available was very insufficient. An overwhelming 96% of respondents believed that too much of their time was spent on paperwork, and only a third believed that joint working with the NHS was effective in their area. They reported structural difficulties, such as remote management, the marginalisation of social work and the duplication of paperwork required because of incompatible IT systems. Although only 3.5% of social workers in England are directly employed by the NHS, many more are seconded to the service from councils, but the status, standing and representation of social work in the NHS is virtually invisible.
Social work plays a vital role in mental health services, addressing the social needs and safeguarding the rights of patients, and hospital social work is essential in enabling rehabilitation and preventing readmissions. A recent survey by Counsel and Care stated:
“Hospital social workers are being bypassed by health professionals, who in some cases are dealing directly with the family rather than using the social worker service to plan discharge...The hospital teams can sometimes function as ‘brokers’, trying to discharge older people in to care homes themselves without proper assessments being undertaken by social workers.”
Does the Minister agree that NHS trusts should ensure that social work is represented in their management and governance structures to prevent such practices? Health employers need to engage much more closely with the social work reform agenda, accepting responsibility for playing their part in its implementation.
Adult social care services are vital and will be increasingly needed in the future, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. Social work faces a number of serious and pressing issues, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to address them.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate on an incredibly important issue. It is a great cause for celebration that people now live longer, but it brings new challenges. Our society—and our Government—should be judged on how we look after our most vulnerable people, and I want to focus my contribution on the care of the group of people who tend to be the most vulnerable: the elderly.
My hon. Friend said that there is a large, sustained increase in the percentage of people needing long-term care, and the projection is that the figure will continue to rise. As has been pointed out, the standards of care in care homes vary greatly, not only across the country but within regions and sometimes within cities—there is even variation across my constituency of Wolverhampton North East. My grandma is in a great care home in neighbouring Staffordshire, which provides wonderful care, and I want to pay tribute to the care workers there, and to those across the country in good care homes. We know, however, that that is more the exception than the rule.
I am very concerned about the drop in the number of inspections of care homes by the Care Quality Commission. I echo the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) about how the Government can guarantee that care home standards across the country are at least good—not poor—and how they can stop those who seem to want to make a quick buck out of the industry and ensure that care home staff are given basic protection rights and paid properly.
I want to turn to the pressing issue of the financing of care, which the previous Labour Government tried to deal with perhaps a little too late. Thousands of people across the country have to sell their homes to fund long-term care, and the cross-party talks regrettably broke down before the general election, with the Conservatives preferring to score political points and publish posters about a “death tax” rather than engage seriously with this most important issue. However, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats, in particular their then health spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who stayed in the talks and was willing to reach some kind of consensus.
I know that the Minister will not want to answer some of my questions because the Government are awaiting the outcome of the Dilnot commission, but I urge him to consider the shortcomings of a voluntary contribution model. Experts in the insurance industry have pointed out that people are unlikely to take out insurance 30 years before they might need the care, and international evidence suggests that such a system is unworkable. France has the largest voluntary insurance market for long-term care but there is only a 15% take-up, so if the Government go for that option, which was in the Conservative manifesto—I am waiting to see what the coalition will do—it is almost as good as doing nothing. If we introduced the model and people did not take up the care, we might as well have done nothing at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said in his closing remarks that this is a matter for generations to come, and it is most pressing that we have a system that enables the Government to provide care for the elderly in the years to come. I said at the start of my speech that this is a great cause for celebration, but it brings a new challenge, and I urge the Minister to consider the value of making this a cross-party issue and ensuring cross-party consensus on the financing of long-term care for the elderly.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I do not believe I have served under your chairmanship before, Mr Brady, and it is a pleasure to do so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing the debate, and on his excellent contribution and the moving examples that he put before us. The truth is that not enough time is spent in the House on this fundamental issue, which is vitally important to many of our constituents; but we have had a very good debate today.
There seem to be two issues here: the structural problems and the cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) touched on standards of care and on ensuring proper status for social care workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a very important political analysis of the ongoing problems, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) demonstrated her great expertise in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) yet again raised the importance of ensuring a long-term solution and expressed our continued regret that this issue was essentially bombed before the last election by the Conservative party, which decided that it was better to make cheap political points than for us all to work together. I assure the Minister that when the Dilnot commission reports we will not be emulating the behaviour of the Opposition at that time and that we will approach the matter with an open mind. We need a fair and sustainable solution, and we want to be able to work together on that. In the end, the issue is more important than party politics, and we must work together not just to find a solution but to implement it.
During the comprehensive spending review, the Government flourished the fact that they were giving an additional £2 billion for social care, but a few months later, local authority budgets were slashed by 8%. Given that social care is top-tier councils’ biggest area of discretionary spending, it was simply inconceivable that it would not be hit.
The Local Government Group and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services both raised concerns about the implications for social care of the CSR local government settlement, warning that the extra £2 billion was simply not enough to meet demand. They argued that the spending gap during the period was likely to be between £3.5 billion and £4 billion due to increasing demand from our ageing population, which will add another 4% a year to social care costs in upcoming years.
Of course, some efficiency savings can be made, but they will never be enough to meet the shortfall. Personalised budgets and various reforms might be able to save some money, but the Minister should listen to those who know, such as ADASS and the Local Government Group, when they say that they will be billions of pounds short when it comes to social care. In those circumstances, they will not be able to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The much-vaunted £2 billion is simply not enough, especially as it is not ring-fenced. Will the Minister tell us whether the whole £2 billion, half of it or a quarter will be spent on social care? Can he do anything if not all of it is? Furthermore, can he confirm that he does not know whether it will be spent or not?
Not only are the Government cutting back on social care through local authorities under the cloak of localism, they are no longer doing centralised assessment of adult social care provision. In other words, they simply do not know what is going on. It is extraordinary that unprecedented cuts are being made at a time when local authority provision of social care is no longer being monitored, yet the Government steadfastly maintain that there need be no cuts to front-line services.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that
“cutting front line jobs and hitting front line services isn’t inevitable—it doesn’t have to be an option at all”,
and the Minister said:
“It is wrong to scare people about cuts. The coalition Government has prioritised social care—the spending review announced significant extra funding for social care for each of the next four years, increasing to an extra £2 billion investment in 2014-15…This extra money means no councils need to reduce access to social care”.
It is simply not good enough for the Minister to put his fingers in his ears and sing “La la la.” The truth is that cuts in social care are being made now. Although he might not know about them, I can tell him, because ADASS, the BBC and I have done surveys. Last month, I surveyed directors of adult social care in England and got 61 replies, representing a 40% response. I appreciate the detailed responses by 27 Conservative councils, 29 Labour councils and four Liberal Democrat councils; that was, obviously, before the last local elections. The responses showed that 88% were increasing their charges, 16% were increasing eligibility criteria and 7% were considering charging more in the longer term. Many were closing day centres and care homes, 54% were cutting the voluntary sector and a further 24% were considering it for the future.
As predicted by everyone who knows, cuts are happening. Councils have not been able to meet increasing demographic pressure, which ADASS believes amounts to £425 million in 2011-12 alone due to the rising number of older people and people with learning disabilities needing substantial support. The ADASS survey shows that, far from increasing spending to meet rising needs, local authorities in England have cut adult social care spending by £1 billion.
We have heard in this debate about the terrible consequences of cuts to front-line services for the most vulnerable in our community. The fact of the matter is that as a result, an elderly woman might no longer get up at breakfast time but at lunch. She might not have an advocate, but we have a duty to ensure that such people are protected. It is not good enough for the Minister to remain in Whitehall saying that there need be no cuts to front-line services. He must listen to the reality of what is going on. Not to address the funding shortages in local authority social care is reckless and wrong.
Funding cuts also mean that local authorities cannot invest in preventive services, so the cuts being made now will have knock-on effects in the long term. If someone does not have a regular visit—if their shopping is not done for them, or if they are not got up in the morning on time—they are more likely to go downhill faster and to end up in hospital. Some 52% of respondents to my survey said that the cuts adversely affected the development of new preventive services. Services that could reduce the need for long-term care and promote independence are among the first to go, but that only increases the strain on health and social care services in the long run.
It is irresponsible of the Minister to continue to say that no cuts need be made to front-line services. Will he admit that he was wrong not to listen to the warnings and to say that front-line services would not be cut? Will he also admit that efficiency savings alone cannot deliver the huge cuts being forced on local authorities? What is he doing to increase the provision of social care now that he has heard the truth about what is going on?
The holy grail, as we all agree, is integration of social care and health, but the difficulty is that the Government are, on one hand, cutting local authorities extensively and, on the other, taking the health service by the ankles, turning it upside down and shaking it hard. Those are not ideal circumstances for the two bodies to integrate properly. The Bill calls itself the Health and Social Care Bill, but it contains precious little social care. There is a great deal of talk about integration, but words are not enough.
When it released the results of its survey recently, ADASS recommended that, as the Government are pausing to reconsider the Health and Social Care Bill, perhaps they might pause long enough to hear the results of the Dilnot inquiry and radically reconsider their plans for long-term care. If they want to be radical on health and social care, that is the area of need. We do not need the fundamentally misguided Health and Social Care Bill as it is drafted. We do not need competition driven into the heart of the NHS. What we need is co-operation and collaboration. We need health and social care to work more closely together.
If the Government are to pause, let them pause and think about that. Let them pause and ensure that, for example, we can keep the elderly out of hospital for as long as possible by allowing social services to provide proper social care, and that once someone is in hospital, they can get out quickly. That is the only fair way to treat people. Frankly, it also saves a great deal of money. If the Government spent more time, energy and resources on solving such issues and a little less on introducing competition into the national health service, we would all be a lot better off. I know that in his heart, the Minister agrees, but he has unfortunately found himself in the difficult position of having to defend this extraordinarily awful Bill.
I may have argued those points when the Bill was discussed in Committee, and I am glad to hear that ADASS now agrees with me in general. I am also glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), never one to allow a bandwagon to pass him by, said that the legislation should be rethought:
“A clear commitment should be written into the Bill to achieve full institutional and managerial integration of the NHS and adult social care in England.”
The Select Committee Chair agrees with us as well.
I ask the Minister to reconsider funding and the reality and to give us an undertaking that he will no longer make false claims that there need be no cuts to front-line services and that he will do something about the matter. I also ask that the Health and Social Care Bill be worthy of its name, if it is not killed off completely. It needs major change so that social care can be integrated properly into health care. Worthy words are simply not enough to achieve that.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on his luck in securing the debate and on his choice of subject.
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on one point at least, which is that social care is not debated and discussed in this House anywhere near enough. I speak with the experience of 13 years in opposition and as one of the few who has carried the candle for social care and advanced the arguments, which I have heard others make today, on the need to focus on quality and to make sure that we do well by and develop the work force. I shall return to some of those points.
I agree that the long-term reform of our social care system should no longer be deferred to the long term. It requires our full attention now. We need to make sure that, during the life of this Parliament and, I hope, with the assistance of people of good will from all sides, we can secure lasting reform of both the law and the funding arrangements for social care. Our constituents expect no less of us at this time.
The hon. Member for Stockton North began by referring to last week’s march and lobby. A number of constituents lobbied me, and I met several of them at my surgery last weekend to discuss their issues. They have real concerns, to which the Government are listening and want to respond properly. We share a common goal, which is to maximise personal independence to allow people of all abilities to fulfil their potential. That has to be the common goal of both our benefits system and our social care system. It is certainly this Government’s ambition to achieve that.
I do not belittle in any way, shape or form the stories of the lives of individuals and the impacts of decisions made about spending in different parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman has rightly set out those individual and personal impacts. However, I will offer him a reflection on the past 13 years and, indeed, before that. The stories that he has told could have been told and have been told over the past 13 years, during which time we have seen a gradual tightening of eligibility criteria. Indeed, in 2008 the Learning Disability Coalition published a survey that showed that 72% of what were Labour authorities at that time anticipated—indeed, they were budgeting for this—tightening their eligibility criteria for access to services from “moderate” need to “substantial” need or even to “critical” need. I will discuss the reality in a moment.
Although the hon. Gentleman has rehearsed some important points, what I did not hear was a scintilla of humility, a suggestion of any doubt, or a slight recognition that we are where we are at least in part because of actions taken over the past 13 years. It would have been good to hear just a little indication that we are where we are because of what has already happened.
Paul Burstow
In a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will let me make my point, I will be happy for him to attempt to rebut it. There are things that did not happen over the past 13 years. We did not get to a position where we had a clear statutory basis for adult safeguarding. We did not get to a position where we had consistency of regulation, because the regulator was constantly being abolished and reformed. Funding has been inadequate for many years, and we have seen a failure, for various reasons over 13 years, to find a way forward that has secured consent for funding.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister said that I did not show any humility, but I specifically said that the previous Government and others before them could have done much more on social care. I specifically said that, and it is important that that remains on the record. In the past 20 or 30 years, no Government have addressed the fact that so many more older people and so many more young disabled people will require tremendous support. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we all need to do this together.
Paul Burstow
Yes; we can build on that point. The Government recognise the importance of social care and the fact that it lets people live independently, which is what it should be about. It should be about enabling people to live well, to be safe, to continue to do things that we take for granted and to be active participants in civic life.
As has been rehearsed in this debate, there are big challenges. There are demographic challenges and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has outlined some of those facts. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has rightly said that, while we should be concerned about the challenge, we should not be so concerned as to forget to celebrate the fact that we have an ageing population—a population that is living for longer and, in many cases, living healthily for longer as well. We also have changing societal expectations and a greater expectation of being able to make choices for oneself, to be in control of one’s own life and to be able to have high standards of support to facilitate that. We have financial challenges. We have a structural deficit. For every £4 that this Government spend today, £1 is borrowed, and we are spending £120 million every day on interest charges.
Reference has been made to the survey by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for the BBC. I have to say that, of the many surveys that have been produced, including that of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, it is probably the least robust of the lot. There we go—I give the hon. Lady credit that her survey must be more robust than that of CIPFA, which did not provide a great deal of detail and did not ask the right questions. Indeed, those who answered the questions were not all social services authorities, and they included things in their figures that are not part of social care. Even the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has criticised that piece of work.
On attempting to address and mitigate the impact of the reductions that the Government have had to make in formula grant over the past year, we have strived to mitigate it in those areas with the greatest needs to make sure that we have increased the support in those areas, relative to others.
The hon. Member for Stockton North talked about high mortality figures in constituencies such as his own. Again, we have to dwell on why that is still the case after so many years, why we still have that legacy, why we have to continue to address those challenges, and why this Government, through their commitments in public health and elsewhere, are determined to make progress.
Despite the deficit legacy, we have taken some decisions. Members have forecast that I would refer to them, and I make no apology for that. We set out in the spending review in October how we would ensure sufficient resource in the system to allow decision makers at a local authority level to protect social care, if they decide that that is their priority. We have a good settlement in that context. An additional £2 billion will come to social care by 2014-15, and that money is getting through. In January, £162 million was put into social care via the national health service, which is something that we were asked to do and which we have done to ensure that social care gets additional support. Moreover, there is £648 million of additional funding from April this year. That money is going to social services departments and is being transferred by the NHS for that very purpose. A further £1.3 billion is supporting the transfer of funding for the commissioning of learning disabilities.
Those sums constitute the biggest transfer of hard cash from the NHS to social care ever. It is not only about supporting social care, but about breaking out of silos. It is about using cash to get people to start having those dialogues that are so important to achieve the collaborative behaviour and integration that are essential to delivering better services for our citizens.
On top of that is the £530 million that will come through the formula grant. I will not micro-manage, from this Chamber or my desk in Whitehall, every single social services authority and tell them how to use that money. It must be their decision, based on need, and they are accountable for such decisions.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister has anticipated what I am about to say. First, if money is being transferred from the health service to social care, I presume that it is being done by primary care trusts, which are at the same time being abolished. Is he confident, therefore, that that money is properly accounted for by the Department of Health, given the current chaos reigning within the health service? Secondly, will he tell us how much of the money given to local authorities is actually being spent on social care in the way in which it is supposed to be?
Paul Burstow
The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that I will write to the hon. Lady with further detail. However, it is certainly the case that money is being agreed between the NHS and social services for the provision of social care services that support health and underpin prevention.
I would also like to refer to the work of the King’s Fund, which is reputable body that is often cited by Opposition Members. It has confirmed that, if we take into account efficiency savings, there is no funding gap for social care during the spending review period. Of course, the grounds on which some councils have made their budget judgments mean that some have acted to protect social care through innovation and the redesign of services. Other councils have decided to change their eligibility or charging policies.
Reference has been made to the ADASS survey, which shows that social care spending as a share of council spending has increased. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury has referred to savings that local authorities are making. For every pound of savings that will be made from social care this year, 70p is a result of efficiency and doing things differently and only 20p—this is still something that I regret—is a result of actual reductions in service.
Yes, eligibility has been tightened, but that is not new. As I have mentioned, a survey carried out by the Learning Disability Coalition shows that those tightenings in eligibility criteria have been part and parcel of local government decisions for many years. Indeed, the ADASS survey shows that, when this Government came into office last year, 101 local authorities were already limiting eligibility to services to those with “substantial” need. Twelve months later, 116 local authorities are using “substantial” need and just six are using “critical” need. It is worth looking behind those headlines, because some councils are changing the eligibility criteria, but they are reinvesting the savings they make from that decision into preventive services, such as telecare and giving people personal budgets. For example, Southwark council has reviewed the needs of people with learning disabilities and is changing its services through the introduction of personal budgets, supported living and providing more control and dignity. It is saving resources, but it is also giving people a better quality of life.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North described the unacceptable quality of care in some care homes and the inquiry that was carried out by a local broadcaster. She is right to describe some of the shocking stories that she has heard and to decry how older people all too often get relegated in the headlines compared with scandals over the care of children. She talked about the Care Quality Commission and the fact that it has changed its inspection model. I respectfully suggest that the basis for the legislation that introduced essential standards and has led to a more risk-based model for inspection was debated in the House not under this Administration, but under the previous one. We have not abandoned the changes the previous Government started or thrown the whole regulatory framework up in the air yet again and caused chaos, as often happened in the past 13 years. We are trying to ensure that that model delivers.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North asked about skills and training. Those issues were also touched on by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). The Government are working with Skills for Care, which will produce work force, retention and personal assistance strategies to address the sorts of concerns that the hon. Lady and others have mentioned. I will publish those shortly.
Catherine McKinnell
I want to reassert the point that, regardless of the changes put in place during the past 13 years under the previous Administration, we are moving into unprecedented territory in terms of the funding given to local authorities for supporting social care within the community. That is the context in which some of the changes that we are demanding and requesting today need to be considered.
Paul Burstow
I have rehearsed some of the findings from the ADASS survey, which shows that although the changes are tough, they are not as unprecedented as the past 13 years of experience would suggest.
The hon. Member for Blaydon talked about the mixed economy of provision in social care and lamented the passing of a time when a public service offer was the almost exclusive way in which social care was provided. He harked back to a golden age that has passed and that may never have truly existed. I am not certain whether I heard him describe a solution or route map that would get us back to the past that he hankers after. If he has one, perhaps he would share it on another occasion. He also talked about Southern Cross. As a Minister, I am, of course, only too well aware of the issues with which that company is currently grappling. Above all else, I am concerned to safeguard the interests of the residents who live in those homes. That should be on our minds whenever we talk about Southern Cross and its prospects. We need to ensure that we secure its future for its residents.
Mr Anderson
I agree with the Minister entirely. I also agree that the previous Government did by no means get things right for 13 years, which is also true of other previous Governments. My worry is that we are being railroaded by a cuts-led agenda. In the past, we at least had a safety net of council provision, but that will no longer exist. Therefore, when organisations such as Southern Cross go belly up, there will be no one to pick up the pieces.
Paul Burstow
My point is that when we came into office, 101 local authorities were already limiting access to services on the basis of “substantial” need. We should not pretend that some overarching change is now happening.
Let me move briefly to the question of the future, which was also a key part of the debate. I am under no illusion that although the settlement that we secured for social care is good, it is only a bridge and a sticking plaster in terms of the future. The social care system needs radical reconstruction surgery, and its funding needs be seen as what it is—a big issue. My ministerial mailbag shows that it is one of the biggest matters about which people write to their MPs, who in turn write to me. There is a real and understandable grievance out there about paying for social care. People feel shock and bewilderment, and they are appalled by the current system because, after paying taxes all their lives, they have to pay for care. That leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of both those who use the services and, in many cases, their families.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton North that we need to change. That is why the Dilnot commission, which this Government established last year, offers us hope and a way forward. It has been asked to consider whether there should be a fair partnership between the state and the citizen. The prize that we could grasp is peace of mind and a sustainable system for the future. I will ensure that the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East are passed on to the commission, so that they form part of its considerations. It is not sufficient to reform funding alone, because we also need a modern statute founded on 21st-century principles of self-determination, reciprocity and responsibility. The current law is a mess: it is confusing; it lacks coherence; and it is hard to understand.
Emily Thornberry
On the issue of confusion, the Minister spoke earlier about the King’s Fund and said that its view is that cuts will not be made to social care. I have just checked that, and I believe that the King’s Fund has said that there will be a shortfall of £1.2 billion by 2014-15.
Paul Burstow
The King’s Fund has stated that but, if one reads on, the document concerned states that if efficiencies of 3.5% are made, there is no need for a funding gap to open up.
On social care law reform, our current legislation is the product of 60 years of piecemeal legislation that looks back to 19th-century poor law principles. A Law Commission report makes 76 recommendations and provides a firm foundation on which we can build. The Government intend to publish a White Paper later this year and to introduce a Bill in the second parliamentary Session.
Our intentions are clear. During the life of this Parliament, we want both the law on social care and its funding to be reformed. We want that reform to be based on a vision in which there is a greater personalisation of social services, a more preventive focus on how those services are provided and a real attempt to deliver around outcomes. We want services that are more innovative and that are based around growth, telecare and involving other providers. There also needs to be a partnership between the individual, the state and health and social care providers. That is how we can secure the future of social care and make a real difference for every one of our constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton North for initiating the debate, and I hope that we will have more debates about social care than have taken place during the past 13 years.
Religious Education
(13 years, 7 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
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I am privileged to raise the role of religious education in schools under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. A number of colleagues have joined me for today’s debate; I thank them.
First, may I state that I know that the Secretary of State for Education takes very seriously the issue of enabling every child—whatever their background—to achieve their full potential by promoting the highest quality of educational standards? He is doing a sterling job in that regard and I thank him for that.
I turn specifically to religious education in schools. Hon. Members will all be aware that RE in schools is, and has long been, a compulsory subject. The Government do not intend to change that. That is good. If RE is important enough to be compulsory, why not include it in the English baccalaureate? In late 2010, the Secretary of State announced that the new E-bac certificate will be awarded to students who achieve grades A* to C in English, maths, science, a foreign language and a humanity. Of the humanities, the choice is history or geography. Why not add RE to the humanities choices?
In response to that question, the Secretary of State has answered:
“because it is already a compulsory subject. One intention of the English baccalaureate is to encourage wider take-up of geography and history in addition to, rather than instead of, compulsory RE.” —[Official Report, 7 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 10.]
That sounds laudable, but there are serious concerns that that will produce unintended consequences. Since school league tables will now take into account the percentage of students awarded the certificate, the E-bac is increasingly being emphasised as the primary qualification for 16-year-olds, and the teaching of RE in schools risks being undermined. Indeed, according to new research by the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, one in three schools, in a survey of nearly 800, say that they will significantly reduce the amount of resources and numbers of teachers dedicated to teaching RE in the approaching academic year. In a recent joint letter published in The Daily Telegraph, leading academics revealed that 45% of university teacher training places in RE have been cut. Therefore, non-specialist teachers will be left to teach the subject.
One reason for varying quality in RE provision in the past—less so today—has been the lack of RE teachers who are subject specialists. There has been considerable progress in increasing their numbers, due in part to the popularity of the subject at GCSE and A-level. If that progress is reversed, the overall quality of RE teaching, even as a compulsory subject, could suffer. The status of the E-bac means that, already, fewer pupils are opting to study RE, as discussions that I have had in my constituency have shown.
Why is RE so important that so many people are asking for a reconsideration and for its inclusion as a core E-bac humanities subject? Before I explore that question, I should say that the many people I refer to include 100 MPs, who have signed an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), calling for just that. That was doubtless prompted in large part, as I have been myself, by constituents’ letters, representations from local schools and a public petition signed by more than 115,000 members of the public. That petition was promoted by the REACT campaign, which stands for putting religious education at the heart of humanities, and it has successfully united religious leaders from a number of faith groups, including Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs.
Why is RE important? It is important because it is a subject taught distinctly from other humanities subjects. It is quite different from the RE, or scripture, that many of us of a certain age may have studied by learning passages from the Bible by rote. Admittedly, that sometimes produced unintended consequences—some humorous, such as the answer in an exam paper that an RE teacher told me about. In response to the question, “Who was most disappointed at the return of the prodigal son?”, a pupil wrote, “the fatted calf”.
Today’s RE has moved on, as I know from closely looking at the subject with one of my sons, who is a GCSE RE student. Today’s RE is not about promoting one religion, but about understanding many and understanding many other aspects of life from a faith perspective. My son tells me that RE includes topics such as environmental issues, discrimination, law and punishment. It also includes an understanding of the cultural and religious values of different peoples and faiths. One sixth former, who recently studied GCSE RE along with total of nine GCSEs, told me:
“it was the only subject in which I got to discuss current affairs and responses to them.”
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Perhaps RE has become so wishy-washy that it is not worth preserving.
Fiona Bruce
I dispute that. My hon. Friend would, I think, respect my view, on which I shall elaborate now.
Religious issues are frequently at the top of any news agenda. Today’s RE helps young people make sense of that and wider world affairs. It also promotes community cohesion, as it allows young people, who are growing up in a diverse society, to discuss and understand the views and opinions of people whose beliefs and values differ from their own, in the safety of the classroom environment. One RE student told me:
“many societies and cultures have strong religious foundations and understanding their methodology and thought was very helpful. I thoroughly enjoyed it.”
Enjoyment is key to learning well. We all learn better when we enjoy it, and GCSE RE is popular. In the past 15 years, the number of students taking GCSE RE has quadrupled from 113,000 to approximately 460,000. The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, has said:
“In an increasingly confusing world, Religious Studies gives young people perhaps their only opportunity to engage seriously not only with the most profound philosophical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality, but also with the most fundamental ethical dilemmas of our day”.
Where else will our young people obtain that? To put it more grittily, I cite a real life example from a teacher of almost 30 years’ standing, who has taught near where I have lived for much of my life. She has been a deputy head teacher with management responsibility for developing spiritual, moral, social and cultural values policy in schools. She recalls:
“On the day after 9/11, a 12-year-old Muslim girl ran to me in tears saying that she had been taunted, chased and threatened on her way to school. Other pupils and youngsters, many older than her were accusing her of being responsible for the destruction of the twin towers and multiple murders. She was identifiable because of the colour of her skin and she wore a scarf. Up until that day, there was no evidence of…any problem. She had received interest and questioning, but she never experienced hatred. Overnight, the media’s coverage and the need to find someone to blame meant that she became a target. She was the only Muslim child in a mostly white school. There had to be an immediate response to identify the main bullies, but for many weeks, through RE, there was specific teaching about Islam and Islamophobia. The outcome was positive, with the girl being accepted and becoming a senior prefect who was respected and valued by others.”
Cultural diversity is explored through teaching RE. Pupils are able to share their beliefs, arrange church visits, demonstrate how a turban is worn, demonstrate how others pray, bring in homemade food for festivals and share the meaning of specific rituals. As well as promoting community cohesion and giving young people an insight into their own and other cultures and heritage, RE also supports pupils in articulating moral judgments and dealing with misfortune, death, loss, and issues in their neighbourhoods and workplaces. It prepares them for adult life.
As one teacher told me:
“good RE teaching can promote positive values for young people and society.”
She cited the example of James Delaney, a twelve-year-old boy from a Traveller family, who was murdered in Ellesmere Port in Cheshire. She speaks from a close perspective, with experience of teaching in the boy’s area. She said:
“Traveller children often have strong religious views…however, if they move into communities, there can be hostility…often their children in school…are exposed to bullying in response to what they may hear their parents and other adults saying. Getting pupils to empathise and ‘step into the shoes’ of a family whose 12-year-old son was murdered…because he was a traveller, proved to be a powerful way of challenging perceptions and wrongly held views, as children should not be held to blame for things their parents do.”
RE lessons also develop transferrable skills such as critical analysis, essay structure and general written and verbal language skills. Those benefit other subjects as pupils learn how to express and articulate their views and, equally importantly, to respect those of others. Questioning, reasoning, empathy, philosophy, values and insight are all highly valuable skills fostered within RE learning. One student told me:
“It focused my thinking on areas of abstract thought, it improved and developed my analytical skills and logical reasoning”—
quite powerful points, in his own words, from a student who has recently studied GCSE RE. Another pupil told me how each essay is commented on according to the qualities of K, U and E——knowledge, understanding and evaluation—which appeared in the margin of all his essays and had to be demonstrated.
Research among 1,000 16 to 23-year-olds has found that 83% felt that RE could promote understanding of different religions and beliefs, while more than half agreed that it had had a positive influence on them. So what would be the negative results, however unintended, of excluding RE from the E-bac as proposed?
Currently, most state secondary schools arrange their timetables with a humanities bloc of geography, history and RE. An experienced teacher told me that
“under the new system if RE is not part of the E-bacc, I can foresee that schools will no longer want to pay exam fees as it will not be acknowledged in the new targets or E-bacc. Pupils will be forced to study either geography or history and will not have space on their timetable to study a full GCSE in RE. Whilst RE remains a compulsory subject, it will have to be taught, but it will be relegated and in pupils, parents and many teachers’ eyes, it will soon become the Cinderella subject it was many years ago.”
RE, even as a compulsory subject, might be increasingly merged with PSHE—personal, social and health education—and citizenship at key stage 4, something I understand Ofsted does not appear unduly concerned about. If those subjects are merged, to overcome a timetable or time issue, staff might not be specialist RE teachers, and the more media-focused or sensational topics within PSHE and citizenship might dominate. Scaling back might also affect the post of RE adviser, a role that ensures that appropriate importance is given to the content of the RE syllabus in response to the needs of a local community, taking into account such factors as the numbers of a particular religious or ethnic group.
RE might not be taught or advised on by specialists to the standard of other subjects, and fewer students and teachers might be able to understand and communicate the impact of religion on culture, society and current affairs. Without that guidance, young people might find it more difficult to cope with the more difficult moral, philosophical or cultural challenges that they find today; to form good relationships with others, especially those of a different cultural background; or to maintain secure values and beliefs enabling them to make good rather than bad choices, in particular in early adulthood. It is also argued that without RE, the influence of simplistic or extreme sources of information on religion could increase, at the risk of greater stereotyping and prejudice; a less tolerant society might ensue.
If faith schools continued to prioritise GCSE RE, they might fall down the school league tables. Some schools might even stop offering GCSE RE as a separate subject or course, putting resources into priority E-bac subjects to raise or maintain the school ranking. Students who devoted time to study GCSE RE could be penalised, as it does not qualify as an E-bac subject.
What am I asking the Minister to do? Primarily to protect, support and sustain the increasing improvement of religious education in our schools, ideally by including the GCSE full course on religious studies as one of the humanities choices in the E-bac, in addition to geography and history. Students could be able to opt for any one of them, or, under a changed specification, to take two of the subjects, so that history and geography retained the same status as currently proposed under the E-bac. Whether or not the Minister responds favourably to that request, which, as I mentioned at the outset, has huge public support, RE will remain a compulsory subject for all school students, even if they do not study GCSE RE, so I ask the Minister to consider my next points as well.
It is critical that RE should not be unintentionally downgraded, that the teaching of RE as a compulsory subject, quite separately from the teaching of GCSE RE, should be accorded the priority it merits, and that appropriate signals should be sent out to such effect from the highest level. Will the Minister kindly consider how the Government can ensure that the appropriate resources are applied to the teaching of RE in schools and that an appropriately robust approach is taken regarding the nature of such teaching and of the Ofsted inspections for the provision and quality of RE? That would reaffirm the important role of RE in schools and its vital contribution to the whole school curriculum. It would recognise RE’s importance to pupils as a preparation for the character that they will require in adulthood, as well as throughout the whole of a child’s school life.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Brady.
I have been contacted by a wide number of constituents, local schools and educationlists who are concerned about the Government decision not to include RE as a humanities subject in the new English baccalaureate, or E-bac. I cannot express those concerns better than by quoting a few of the individuals directly, beginning with a recent communication from Mrs Robson, head teacher of Archbishop Runcie Church of England first school in Gosforth, in my constituency:
“students qualifying with GCSE full course in RS are young people who demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a variety of contemporary world views and who have demonstrated skills of discernment and evaluation of religious and philosophical issues and arguments, qualities much needed in today’s world.”
She continued that the consequence of not including RE as a humanities option
“would be disastrous for many schools and students and for the future expertise required to teach the subject…The unintended consequence of not including GCSE Religious Studies as an option in the E-Bacc is that many schools will cease to offer RE at GCSE altogether; this in turn will have a very negative impact on the number of students taking RE at A-Level, and therefore on the applications for theology and religious studies at degree level. This means that there will be a corresponding decline in candidates for teacher training and so on teacher supply for RE, a subject which is already lacking in specialist teachers.”
Alison Miller, head teacher at St Mark’s Roman Catholic primary school in Westerhope, expressed her concerns about the Government’s decision, stating that it would be a “retrograde step” to exclude RE from the E-bac, in particular in light of
“the excellent progress that has been made in the teaching of RE at GCSE level over recent years”.
I share my constituents’ concerns. We seriously lag behind the rest of Europe in our approach to education and our ability, through our schooling, to analyse issues and problems from a deeper philosophical perspective. I am concerned that the decision to exclude RE from the E-bac will reinforce that trend, when a better understanding and respect for different faiths, regardless of one’s own faith or practice, would be beneficial.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
At this particular time in our history, when there is so much conflict still in the world, many teachers and parents believe a spiritual literacy and understanding of religion is hugely important and must continue in Britain. Does my hon. Friend recognise fears that that will be diminished at the local level?
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with my right hon. Friend and thank him for reinforcing that important point. Religious education should not in effect be downgraded in this way, as a good understanding of all religions is essential to a well rounded education.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education on behalf of my constituents, urging him to rethink the Government’s decision. However, I received a very disappointing response from the Schools Minister, which simply reiterated the position that RE is not to be included because it is already a compulsory subject, “throughout a pupil’s schooling”. That argument has been demolished by Mrs Robson, the head teacher at Archbishop Runcie school, who pointed out the difference between statutory or core provision of religious education and the option for students to take religious studies as a full course to GCSE level.
The Minister’s response simply does not address the concern that his decision will lead to a downgrading of the importance of RE, because achievement in designated E-bac subjects will, understandably, become the overriding concern of schools, pupils and parents. Like me, many of my constituents and people throughout the north-east are dissatisfied with the Minister’s responses, and his apparent refusal to reconsider his decision. They include Mrs Pat Wager, head teacher at Sacred Heart Catholic high school in Fenham, which is my old school. She said:
“RS cannot be excluded from a domain entitled ‘Humanity’—RS is the pre-eminent humanity and yet it has no place.”
That is dispiriting for Catholic schools, which contribute so much to performance nationally. Whenever a Minister addresses us, we are told how wonderful we are and our exceptional achievements are celebrated, yet we are being treated disdainfully over this matter, which is so important to us.
For all the reasons outlined so articulately and persuasively by Mrs Wager, Mrs Robson, Ms Miller and the many other constituents who have contacted me about this important issue, I urge the Minister to stop or to pause, and to reconsider his decision not to include RE as a humanity in the English baccalaureate. We would all welcome that U-turn.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I agree with everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). As at least 12 hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate, I shall be brief.
I am sure the Minister needs no persuasion of the need for religious education in the syllabus, so I suspect that the issues are essentially practical. I am also sure that the damaging and ongoing domino effect on religious education of being left out of the 2010 E-bac list has been explained to him on many occasions, as has been clearly confirmed by the survey by the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education.
My understanding is that the Minister’s concern is a practical issue and not about RE, because he wants to reverse the decline in history and geography, but that should not be done by undermining RE. Perhaps he will consider having at least a two-out-of-three option, which would add only 5% of time to the syllabus and could be easily managed. I hope that when he replies to the debate, he will not dig in but will start by saying that he has heard the mood of the Chamber, and that he will ask his officials to explore a two-out-of-three option, and return to him.
That is all the more important because under the review of the national curriculum, RE is not part of it. There is a distinction between the basic curriculum and the national curriculum. RE is the odd subject out, which does not help. As we move towards a greater number of academies—I think the Government’s perception of them is that they should be “independent” schools—we will not see RE written back into primary legislation for academies. If we are not careful, all that will undermine the position of RE.
RE teacher training has been hit by nearly 50% because of schools responding to the change in its position. I appreciate that the Minister is sympathetic regarding the question of RE in the E-bac, but I hope he will be able to square the circle because that is his ministerial task. Only religious education provides students with the opportunity to question and study spiritual and moral beliefs in a spiritual context.
I conclude by sharing with the House what I think is the clear and undisputed view of the Church of England, and which is clearly supported by other Churches. That was made clear to me when I went to the consecration of St Joseph the Worker Roman Catholic church in my constituency on Sunday. The Church of England
“is deeply concerned at the exclusion of Religious Education from the list of Humanities qualifications that are acceptable for the English Baccalaureate. It is already clear that schools are removing RE from the GCSE options for students as a direct result of this.”
I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the Chamber today, and heed its collective voice.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I apologise to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for not giving her notice of my desire to contribute to this debate. I am here as a lay person, a practising Catholic and a great friend of Jane Savill, who runs the master’s degree course in religious education at the Institute of Education in London.
It strikes me that a poor excuse for excluding religion from the humanities topics in the baccalaureate is that we want to promote geography and history, because that is doing to RE what we did to geography and history. As most people know, when Ofsted comes into a school, it has a whole-school programme approach and will not notice the decline in RE as a topic until it is too late and it is in the same state as history and geography. Knowing that, and understanding the history, why would we want to replicate our current problems?
For me, religious education, far from being wishy-washy, provides an understanding of our place in society and of others’ views in society. In my suburban south London constituency, many people are new to our area and have different faiths, values and attitudes, and the study of religious education is important for our understanding not only of other people’s views, but of our own place in the world. Sometimes, the religious education that young people receive outside the classroom may be a cause for concern, and for radicalism, but that may be challenged in schools in an environment where people feel safe to challenge the views of others.
I implore the Minister to look at the matter again. What big society topic can be greater than religious education? It is a subject that makes us understand the basis of our constitution, society, history and values. If we want people to look outwards, to see their place in the world and to show responsibility towards others, religious education is the very basis of that action and those values. When people ask me why I joined the Labour party and why I became an MP, it is often difficult to answer because there are so many reasons for all of us. My faith is part of the basis of that, not because I am as understanding of my faith intellectually as some hon. Members on the Government Benches, but because I am a cradle Catholic and understand my values through my education.
I suggest that the problem for religious education will not be in the Catholic schools, because they will continue to have a core understanding that the teaching of religious education is imperative to pupils’ development. It is other schools that may have a significant problem, and I ask the Minister to think about that, because of the topic’s academic value, its value to individual development and its benefit to wider society in understanding not only our own history but others’.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her debate. Obviously, hon. Members are speaking with considerable passion. I acknowledge that, of a number of things I have done in life for which I am barely qualified and have no genuine talent, one has been teaching RE. I taught it for quite a long time to bright adolescent boys, so I know a little about the matter.
Religious education is not an attempt to make people religious, and that must be clearly stated. It is not an attempt to instruct people on what they should believe. Religious education and religion are misunderstood and widely misrepresented.
It seems to me that a person adopts a religion because that provides a framework within which they try to understand their existence; they abandon that religion if and when it fails to provide that meaningful framework. A religion or faith is tested as one’s existence is played out day by day—religion is caught, not taught. Some people get by without using any traditional religious concepts to clarify their life and existence, and such people are called secularists. Most hon. Members present in the Chamber appear to be religious, but in general, people who are not religious are frankly indifferent to those who are. There are, however, an increasing number of angry and aggressive secularists who are filled with what can be described only as missionary zeal to ensure that people are as unreligious as possible. Some people make no attempt to apply a framework to their existence and live an unreflective life.
Within our existence we do a range of things—we study science and history, make moral decisions, listen to music. We join political parties, fall in and out of love, make speeches in Westminster Hall, get ourselves elected and so on. Those things are part of our existence, but they do not entail a particular view of what existence is about. We struggle; we sometimes wonder what we are all doing here. Happily or unhappily, most cultures have a particular view of how we should understand our existence. We call those views religions, and in a sense they come from the groundwork carried out by our forebears. The merits, strength and weaknesses of religions are discovered by those who adopt and try to live out such explanations for their existence.
We cannot teach a religion in a classroom, but we can teach about it and that is what religious education involves. RE may include a number of elements such as the history of religion to explain what people of a particular religion have done, how that religion began, how it spread and so on. The sociology behind religion may be taught to identify a religion’s social effects and the factors that influenced its growth. There may be elements of psychology in identifying traits that may—or may not—incline one towards a particular religion, and the effects of religious belief on a person. RE is not philosophy; its principal job is to clarify how religions, which exist all around us, endeavour to explain our existence and how adherents of a religion live their lives and are likely to act.
Religious education has historically been taught in a narrow way that simply explained the Christian framework. More recently we have had more of a Cook’s tour approach—I am sure that would disgust the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh)—and a whole range of religions are covered with a fairly light-touch approach. It is a hard subject to teach in a totally fair and scrupulous way.
Only once we understand how people view their lives will we know how to engage with them properly, which, I suggest, is what life is about. Therefore, understanding people’s religions is at least as important as understanding their history or geography. Arguably, it is more important than knowing about one’s own past or locale, although there is considerable benefit in understanding one’s culture, background and habitation. History, geography and religious education are all equally important subjects, and there is no convincing case for excluding one and including the others in the English baccalaureate. The reason given by the Secretary of State is that RE is a compulsory subject under law, but the grounds for that curious legal status are obscure and not explained. It is not clear—it seems a straight non-sequitur—why making a subject compulsory in the syllabus means that it does not need to be optional and given more intensive study in the baccalaureate. The blessings of compulsory status are mixed. In the average British school, subjects with compulsory status are often ignored or not explained, and even good schools feel licensed to provide minimal or poor-quality teaching, simply to comply with the law. The compulsory status of RE in this country has done little to stimulate genuine religious belief or interest. In the United States, where teaching religion in schools is absolutely forbidden, church attendance is higher and there are greater levels of belief.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Given the decline in attendance at church services across the United Kingdom and particularly in England, is there not a greater need for religious education and study in schools, so that the benefits of that will be felt by those families who do not have the chance to attend church on Sunday?
John Pugh
Given that people do not necessarily have an adequate understanding of what religions represent and involve, there is a case for teaching more about them in schools. I will go that far, but one cannot argue that it is the job of schools to make the nation religious. RE was made compulsory in schools due to a Victorian belief that an irreligious proletariat would be difficult to handle.
Whether or not RE is legally compulsory should not affect its inclusion as a humanities subject in the baccalaureate. The most interesting thing about humanity—we are discussing humanities—is not that we live, breathe, procreate and die, but that we seek to grasp what our existence is about and live accordingly. We are all religious in some sense or other. To make RE a statutory obligation risks diminishing its status, narrowing its scope and lessening its quality. It is a poor argument to suggest that, just because a subject is compulsory in one context, it cannot be optional in another.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving late, Mr Brady, and I shall not delay hon. Members for long. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) will not mind my saying this, but he gave the driest version of what religious education might involve that I have ever heard. His speech included a lot of sentences that could have ended with the word “discuss” in an essay title.
I have four brief points. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), I am not a layperson. I was ordained in 1986 in the Church of England, and that remains with me although I resigned my orders prior to entering the House. I believe strongly that the most important place where people catch faith—to use the words of the hon. Member for Southport—is in the home; the best faith education happens in the home, in a family setting.
Last night, however, I sat next to a woman who told me that although she was a strong member of her local United Reform church, and in her words a very liberal Christian, one of her sons is now an ardent evangelical who believes that she will be going into the fiery pit, and her other son is a militant atheist. None the less, she felt that she had done a good job of religious education in the home.
The question of RE in schools is vital. The subject is not an add-on; it is essential to understanding so many other subjects. Few works of English literature—apart, perhaps, from that written in the past 20 years—can be properly understood without an understanding of Christianity. It is difficult to understand many modern British novels without knowing something about Islam. Most British music—indeed, most European music from the past 800 years—is dominated by religious themes. How can one understand the history of Parliament without some reference to the religious debates that started with rows about the Lollards and went through to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales in the early 20th century?
If we wish to respond to some of the challenges of militant religion, we should perhaps be better at discussing religion in the main Chamber. Some elements of geography cannot be understood without a knowledge of religion. The relationship of Istanbul—once Constantinople—with Europe cannot be understood as a geographical entity without consideration of the religious aspect. Few modern languages do not require an understanding of religion.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that without an understanding of religion, we are left only with labels, which is a huge problem for society?
Chris Bryant
I was coming to that point. However, before I do, I want to say as an article of faith—and I am not a fundamentalist, either in religion or politics—that I think spirituality is a river that one cannot dam. There are hundreds of different forms of spirituality, but any education worth its salt in this country needs to give young people an opportunity to understand and develop that spirituality, so that it is fully grown and mature, not naive.
The hon. Member for Congleton referred to “a tolerant society”. I hate that term. I do not want to live in a tolerant society, because it smells of people saying, “I am prepared to put up with you.” I would much prefer to live in a respectful society. If anything, the danger of the liberal—small “l”—Britain of the past 100 years is that we have been tolerant of other religions, but never learned enough about them to be truly respectful.
In addition, we have never learned enough about Islam, or any other religion, to be able to challenge bad religion. Heaven knows, there is plenty of bad religion in society today. It is not just the British attitude that one cannot possibly talk about politics or religion at a dinner party; it is that all too often we are fundamentally ignorant about the basis of most religions. I would include in that the fact that many young people are extremely ignorant about Christianity.
My experience of Catholic teaching in many Catholic schools is that sometimes it is good and sometimes it is appalling. There is one thing that I particularly dislike: I have heard Catholic teachers refer to “Christians and Catholics”, as if non-Catholics were not Christians. I always believed the word Catholic to extend beyond. I hope all that has moved on, but I think that in some cases it has not.
I want to refer to one final matter. I happen, bizarrely, to be an external adviser on the Oxford theology degree. One of my concerns is that the number of people applying to do theology at university is dwindling. In part, that may be due to social issues, but it may also be due to the respect with which religious education is treated in the curriculum in England, Wales and Scotland. I wish it would be accorded further respect, not least because the big danger is that otherwise the courses will end up just being vocational. In other words, somebody training to be a priest goes to read theology at university and is merely trained in that narrow, prescriptive way, and does not learn about other religions or extend the course. That is a vicious circle because fewer people who have an interest in religion itself, rather than a desire to go for ordination, will take it forward.
I wholly agree with what the hon. Member for Congleton said, and I congratulate her. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the value that he places on religious education in schools.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. I am mindful that many Members wish to speak. I would like to say that, although many of us have a religious persuasion, the issue is not about “God squad” people wishing to keep God in schools. I had a very interesting discussion with Juliette Lyle, deputy director of the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education. She came to speak to me, as a teacher in St Albans schools. We agreed that this taxing and pressing subject ought to be considered by people of faith and no faith.
“Religious education” is a misnomer, and that worries me. It is like calling maths, “sums”; it diminishes the subject. Some of the great studies throughout recorded history have been theological. Some of our greatest and most beautiful pieces of writing have come through the theological route. To diminish it by calling it “RE, and everybody does it” takes away the rigour of its study.
People have also queried its use and the good of studying it. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it could be vocational. I could also question the good of some complex mathematical theorems that one might have studied at 14 or 15. I used to be a teacher and, as a Member of Parliament, I have found my religious education O-level to be of far more use than the maths that I was pretty rubbish at. If nothing else, it has helped me to understand some of the faiths and backgrounds of people I serve in my community. My constituency is a proud cathedral city, but also has a 10% ethnic minority community, the largest of which is Bangladeshi. For all of us, even if we take it no further as a rigorous study, RE helps us in our lives to understand other people. That point has been well made today.
I hotly disagree with the opinion that the subject is wishy-washy. If it is wishy-washy in some schools, some rigour ought to be put back into it. By leaving it out of the baccalaureate as an option, we are continuing to give it a “sums” title of study. We should be saying that the subject is one of the pinnacles of university study, but it is increasingly not a university course of choice. With that comes the shuttered approach that we get in many of our town centres. Once a town centre is diminished, once there are no longer shops that people go to, people stop going there. If we do not give the subject the place that it truly deserves within the curriculum, as a rigorous option among the humanities courses, people will stop choosing it. Young people will stop seeing it as something worth doing, parents will not encourage them to do it and it will die a slow death.
Mindful that many others are speaking today, I would like to say that I supported the early-day motion and I also wrote to the Minister. I urge the Minister to listen to our voices. It is not just because people want to see us doing religion in schools. Religion, as many have said, is something that one catches or may never catch, and having it is not easy. This is about a rigorous approach, about testing values. Should we bar people from wearing religious symbols? Should we legislate for that as they do in France? Do we condemn the sectarian attacks on goalkeepers because some teams are seen as having a particular religious persuasion? Do we look at some great pieces of literature and say that the roots are echoed in modern literature? As other hon. Members have said, people might not even understand the literature without understanding the references. There are many aspects of the subject that could be studied intensely, which would contribute enormously to a young person’s education and life skills.
The claim that there is a logistical problem should not prevent RE from being an option in the baccalaureate. I urge the Minister to consider a way round that, so that schools that wish to approach the subject in the rigorous way that I would like have the option of doing so. To say that the subject is done all through the school year diminishes it and is used as a reason not to include it. I would rather it were not made a legal requirement in schools, if that means it is then excluded. Most schools, particularly faith schools, would teach it anyway.
If one can opt out of religious studies, we have more of an argument for removing that legal protection, rather than using it as an excuse to exclude it from the baccalaureate. There is strong support in the country to see this subject as an option. I urge the Minister to listen to that support.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing such an important debate. As has already been noted, it is not actually a religious debate. It is also not just about a religious lobby wanting to fight its own corner; I always think that God is big enough to fight his own corner, on this issue as well as others. Nor is the debate about imparting faith. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, the best place for that is often the home.
This is a debate about humanities. The Government are keen, quite properly, to ensure that we return the rigour and the study in humanities, especially given the declining numbers studying geography. This is an issue of humanities, geography, history and culture. Religion, particularly Christianity, has shaped our buildings—not just the building we walk in, but those all around. Religion has shaped literature in our libraries, paintings in our galleries and relationships with our neighbours. The debate has looked beyond the classroom, and that is right.
However, we need to recognise what has been going on in our classrooms. There is a freeze on consultants, so I would like to help the Minister with a SWOT analysis—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. First, there are the strengths that one sees around in relation to religious education. Yes, there has been an increase in provision and quality since the mid-1990s. RE is also much more popular. Gone is the caricature of RE lessons as simply being the soft option, where pupils can have an easy ride, go to sleep or cause trouble for the teacher. There is now properly recognised specialist training for RE, and that is reflected in the fact that four times as many students take it up at A-level than was the case 15 years ago.
The statutory curriculum is a strength, and we need to look at it in more detail. In that respect, there is leadership from the Minister and the Secretary of State—including in communications that I have received, which have been more positive than hon. Members have suggested. In them, there has been a commitment to the importance of religious education and to continuing to safeguard its position in the curriculum. They have also made it clear that there are no plans to change the current legal requirement for a daily act of collective worship.
Another strength, which has not been mentioned, is standing advisory councils for religious education at the local level. Local agreed syllabus conferences provide good-quality religious education, and one fine example is Birmingham, where people are being brought together to determine what is best for their community.
However, there are weaknesses, which we need to recognise. Despite a legacy of improvements, we face a difficult time, even leaving aside the concerns about the E-bac. Last year’s Ofsted report “Transforming religious education”—it did not receive a response from the previous Government, and I question whether there will be a formal response from this Government—recognised that there was a lack of systemic monitoring by Ofsted of statutory compliance. It also recognised the inadequacy of professional development and the fact that the quality of religious education is still patchy. That was particularly true—this is the key point—where teachers were non-specialists and there were short GCSE courses. The concern is whether that weakness will predominate around the country with the result that the strengths that have been built up over the years are lost.
However, there are opportunities, as I have mentioned. The Government are quite properly committed to local determination as regards religious education. I could also mention this debate, the 115,000 people who have signed petitions and the people who have lobbied us. It is important to harness that debate and interest to ensure that communities fight the corner of religious education locally so that it is in our schools. We must also ensure that funding streams continue for the religious education advisers who are under threat. There is also greater freedom in the curriculum, and that, too, provides opportunities.
The threats involved in RE’s not being part of the E-bac have been mentioned, and I will not repeat them.
Mr Lammy
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mentioned the British Humanist Association, but does he recognise that although we would not generally agree with some of the things that it says, it is also concerned about the loss of religious education in our schools? The association believes that it is important for people who are not of faith—atheists or agnostics—to understand religious views and to hear them put across in schools.
Mr Burrowes
I do indeed recognise that. Many associations take part in the local agreed syllabus conferences.
The rebuttal to the concerns about RE’s not being part of the E-bac is that schools still have the time in their curriculums to allow pupils to take RE as a GCSE option. I see that as an option for pupils at successful schools, which have the necessary capacity and time, but it may not be an option for less successful schools and for pupils who are more challenging, who will inevitably go for just the core requirements in the curriculum. The unintended consequence of such an approach could be that RE is not taken up as an option. The concern then is that we would go back to having a lack of specialist RE teachers.
There is a concern that the freedoms set out in the funding agreements for academies and free schools may entail a lower take-up of RE in some areas. There is also a concern that the current statutory requirement is not being followed through to implementation. As has been said, where is the true rigour in inspections? The limited focus on maintaining the statutory requirement in future inspections may have a negative effect on the curriculum. I recognise that the national curriculum review does not include religious education, but one should not ignore the crossover and the links between the basic curriculum and the national curriculum in terms of the whole life of a school and exam options.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to walk carefully and cautiously in considering the possible impact of not having RE as part of the E-bac. I ask him to recognise the strength of the crucial argument that if RE is important enough to be required by law, it is important enough for us to include it as an exam subject in the English baccalaureate. That would be just one simple and practical way of acknowledging the importance of religious literacy and a proper understanding of our humanity.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr Brady. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on arranging this important debate.
I welcome the Department’s dialogue with universities to ascertain which GCSEs will give young people the best chance to get into the best universities. I have supported the E-bac for many years, so I am greatly encouraged that the coalition Government are moving forward with it. However, I have obvious concerns about the fact that the humanities exclude RE, so let me say a little about the importance of RE, which all my colleagues have dealt with very well.
In simple terms, there are so many different messages for our young people in the modern world that the very idea of their not receiving education from experienced RE teachers fills me with horror. There are so many dysfunctional messages out there that if young people do not have the opportunity to hear about religion in the round from experienced teachers, they will, as sure as night follows day, be more prone to taking up some of the more dangerous, outrageous and cruel messages about aspects of religion, which would do them a disservice. I therefore urge the Minister to think carefully about this.
On some more specific points, I was privileged to sponsor early-day motion 1375, and I am absolutely delighted that more than 100 Members from all parties in the House have supported it and signed it, just as many tens of thousands of members of the public have signed petitions. Indeed, if I could wave a magic wand and explain the importance of RE in schools to all 60 million-plus people in this country, No. 10 Downing street would have a petition with about 30 million signatures.
The Minister and the Department recognise that this is an issue of serious and profound concern for many people. Given that the Minister is with us today, however, I want to ask for a number of commitments. First, there is no getting away from the fact that not making RE an option in the humanities section of the E-bac will lead to reductions in RE-trained and experienced staff; in fact, I am already receiving anecdotal evidence that that is happening. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that possible trend is halted? I fear that the redundancies that will inevitably come from the Department’s proposed changes will lead to a fall in standards, less focus on RE as part of a compulsory key stage 4 curriculum and, importantly, a lack of trained resource for the future, which our children and schools will ultimately regret deeply—I certainly would, and all my colleagues in the Chamber would, too.
Secondly, when the Minister speaks at the end—I am not trying to read his mind, but I have been in constant discussion with his Department, so I am pretty sure that this is accurate—he will state that RE does not need to be included as an option in the E-bac because it is a compulsory part of the key stage 4 curriculum, but that is not the case for academies. Will he therefore clarify the situation on academies and tell us what he will do about the fact that take-up in academies is—I have heard this anecdotally—beginning to decline? That is even more relevant when we consider that academies are far more prevalent in areas where there is more deprivation and where children grow up in a range of different religions. In a way, that makes it even more important that academies have the trained, experienced RE teachers to teach children in a balanced way.
Thirdly, I suspect that the Minister will state that the number of students studying RE has risen from 16% in 1995 to 28% in 2010 and that the take-up of history and geography has declined over that period. I agree with him and accept that that is an issue. I welcome the E-Bac, but does the Minister accept not only that the increased take-up of RE is a good thing, but that excluding it from the E-bac will perhaps lead to an even more dramatic decline in take-up than geography has experienced over the past 16 years—from 45% to 26%? What will he do to address that? I would like him to commit to revisiting and reviewing the role of RE, should take-up decline.
[Dr William McCrae in the Chair]
Essentially, I and many of my colleagues—on both sides of the House, and of all beliefs and none—along with hundreds of thousands of members of the public, profoundly believe that the changes could lead to a diminution for our children of RE teaching by trained and experienced teachers. I urge the Minister to reconsider the Department’s direction of travel, to listen to us and to the public, and to not do a U-turn but change his mind as the facts change.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. I suspect that this is one of those subjects on which, as Kipling said,
“never the twain shall meet”.
Those who regard religious teaching in our schools, or any religious instruction, as brainwashing will not be convinced otherwise, and, yes, those who passionately favour the continuation of RE lessons as an essential part of our young people’s education tend to feel equally passionate.
I am a Christian and, although I favour the continuation of RE teaching in our schools, I hope that I have been able to step back and look objectively at the arguments on both sides. I agree with my hon. Friend when she stresses how important it is that RE not be downgraded, to use her phrase. The argument is not about the continuation of “brainwashing”, but about providing an essential background to our culture and identity as a nation. Our history centres around monarchy, Parliament and Church, and although all those institutions have passed through turbulent times, they have, in the end, brought stability and the freedom to enjoy the benefits of religion—or, indeed, the freedom not to practise any faith.
Like many children of the 1950s, I attended Sunday school until I was of an age when my father, who regularly attended that most beautiful of Anglican services, evensong, decided that I, too, was old enough to go with him and appreciate it. Of course, at that time there was a daily assembly in school. I realise that there are many difficulties in delivering such an assembly nowadays, but many of our schools quite simply do not try hard enough—where there is a will, there is indeed a way.
Children who miss out on adequate RE lessons as part of their schooling miss out not only on the opportunity to learn the benefits that faith can bring to an individual and how faith can inspire, but on the opportunity of the shared experience that our churches bring when our communities celebrate the rites of passage or an occasion of thanksgiving. Until two or three years ago, I served for five years as a churchwarden, and it was a privilege to be on duty at, for example, a baptism; but I was always saddened by the fact that many people were not fully able to share the whole experience because they could not recite the Lord’s prayer or understand many of the symbols and traditions that are instinctive to my generation.
It is good that some of our other organisations cater for young people to some extent and fill the gap, on some occasions, that schools have left. On Sunday, I attended Grimsby minster for the somewhat delayed annual St George’s day service of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes scout association. There were a few hundred young people parading and saluting their flag, promising to serve God, Queen and country and to help their fellow men and women, and all in the setting of an act of collective worship and thanksgiving.
Our country is the poorer in that, nowadays, we provide our young people with little opportunity to take part in collective worship and to learn the basic teachings of our major religions; love, respect and tolerance are at their heart and we should treasure those teachings. I readily admit that it is possible to value those precepts and to pass them on to future generations without a faith, but those generations will miss the opportunity to learn about religions and to weigh up for themselves whether to accept their teachings.
The then head teacher at my daughter’s junior school, David Thomas, when questioned at a parents’ evening on the role of RE, said that its role in his school was to bring the pupils to the “threshold of belief”. That phrase has stuck with me; it is valuable and the ideal at which schools should aim. It saddens me that at times there seems to be an acceptance—certainly among some mainstream Christian Churches—that it is all a little too difficult and we must be even-handed, but if the will exists, we can ensure that the valuable tradition of RE in our schools continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) spoke earlier about a general indifference to RE among people. To some extent that is correct. People are not constantly thinking about it as they go about their daily business, but we should not assume that the great majority of British people are quite that indifferent to it. Only a few weeks ago, someone approached me—ironically enough, as I left a Grimsby Town football match. He had obviously been idling away his time looking at the Parliament website and had spotted that I supported an early-day motion on RE in schools. He congratulated me and said, “I am sure the people are behind you”, which was encouraging and important.
RE in our schools is vital if we are to make people aware of faith and to contribute to the rounded development of our young people, so that they can appreciate our rich cultural history. I hope the Minister will give a robust defence of RE in our schools and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said, ensure that the resources for it will be available. I hope the Minister will reassure me that the Government will play their full part; that is particularly important, given what has been said on academies. North East Lincolnshire local education authority has been a trailblazer for academies, so it is particularly important that the role of RE in those schools be maintained. I apologise to the Minister: I will have to slip out a few minutes before the end of his summing-up speech, but tomorrow I will eagerly read what he has said in Hansard.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. There are still a number of people who want to speak, and I am sorry but we will not be able to fit everyone in. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at about 10 past 12.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It has been an interesting debate and I hope that I will not, as so often happens, be the grit in the oyster. I value religion as much as anybody in the House—I have written a book on the decline of religion and how it affects society—but I believe that we owe the Minister a careful hearing, because the whole point of the E-bac is to bring rigor back into academic education. I support RE more than anybody, but too many schools have climbed up the league tables by, frankly, cheating by providing Mickey Mouse courses. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on performing a great service with this debate. I have a son at the London Oratory, which is a Catholic school, and I value that fact. It will do very well out of the E-bac, because a rigorous academic school, which will continue to promote faith studies, will benefit in the league tables by concentrating on rigorous academic subjects such as maths and English.
I intervened on my hon. Friend earlier because those of us who support RE must argue based on what it is. Has it been so degraded in how it is taught that it is no longer an academic subject? Of course we should support other religions and value people of other religions—that goes without saying—but my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) says that we need to understand and to debate whether it is right for people to wear the burqa or the cross. That is fine as a subject of public debate, but should it be part of a rigorous academic subject?
Mr Leigh
No, I am not. I am saying that a close study of the Talmud is as valuable and rigorous, and in my view as academic, as a close study of the Koran or the Christian Bible.
If we are to restore religious education as an academic subject, we may have to restore it as an academic study. Otherwise, it will continue to be an easy cop-out. One cannot defend an academic subject on the ground of good citizenship—we should all be good citizens, we should all value other people and we should all be kind and nice to others, but that is not an academic subject.
I hope the Minister will assure us that the exclusion of religious education is not a prejudice against religion. I am sure he will want to assure us about academies, which is an important point. However, I hope that he will also give a hint to those of us who organise religious education—there is no point in denying that it was a bad Ofsted report—that it has to return to its history as a rigorous academic subject.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate, which has been most interesting. The hon. Lady acknowledged the considerable progress on religious education that was made under the previous Government; as she has said, the numbers have quadrupled. She made an extremely thoughtful speech on the teaching of religious education, with particular emphasis on the E-bac.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her speech. I also congratulate her on getting a timely reply to her letter from the Secretary of State for Education, which is a rare thing. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) called for a two-out-of-three option on the E-bac. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a passionate speech about her Catholic religious background. As ever, the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) was donnish and scholarly in his observations. He seemed to be putting forward a case for the compulsory teaching of philosophy rather than of religion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) reminded us that the Church is disestablished in Wales, but he admirably resisted the temptation to use the word “antidisestablishmentarianism”, which showed a great deal of restraint, which I do not possess. My hon. Friend preached respect rather than tolerance, which is an interesting distinction.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), a former teacher, spoke with passion. Incidentally, my school—St Alban’s RC comprehensive school at Pontypool —is obviously named after the same martyr as her city. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) acknowledged the progress made under the previous Labour Government, saying that four times as many are now studying RE at A-level. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) urged the Minister to repent on the matter of E-bac. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is obviously a man of great faith; he must be to support Grimsby Town football club.
Finally, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) accused schools of cheating. It was slightly over the top, even for him, to say of schools that enter pupils for exams that are available and properly set out by the examination boards that they are cheating. I would be interested to know which schools in his constituency he thinks are cheats, and which teachers and head teachers. I am sure that he will list them all later.
It is right for me to say something about what the previous Government did to improve RE teaching in our schools. We invested £1 million in an RE action plan during our last three years. We wanted to improve the quality of teaching and learning of religious education, with revised guidance and a review of resources, support and materials for teachers. We wanted to strengthen the role of RE in the curriculum, and we worked closely with the key stakeholders to deliver that plan. The previous Government, like this Government, were supportive of religious education being taught in our schools, and we were supportive of it being broadly Christian in character. However, it is extremely important that pupils should be taught about different religions, not least in the multi-faith world which we live in and which is reflected in so many of our constituencies.
The previous Labour Government were right to do that, and I do not think that there has been any particular deliberate change in emphasis by the present Government. However, a number of Members spoke about the impact of the English baccalaureate on the teaching of RE. That policy comes under the famous “nudge” theory. I have said it before, and I shall say it again, but if we nudge people with a loaded gun the consequences are obvious. The consequence of the loaded gun of the English baccalaureate for the teaching of RE in schools is becoming clear.
I wonder what the Secretary of State thought would happen to the teaching of RE when he announced the English baccalaureate. It was done in a rush, without consultation and without deep thought being given to it. Was he emphasising the importance of teaching the core academic subjects? Was he setting his own exam test that he could not fail? He knows that in a few years’ time the impact of nudging people in that way—of saying that schools will be judged on how they do in the E-bac—would be a rush, a diversion, of schools’ resources into the teaching of those subjects. The inevitable consequence, which he desires, is that he would be able to say at the end of his parliamentary term, “I have succeeded, because more people are studying the subjects that I have decided are important.”
What will be the consequences for RE? As the hon. Member for St Albans has said, The Times Educational Supplement of 4 February 2011 published a survey by the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, which had gathered 800 responses from state and independent schools. It was reported that the survey had
“found planned cuts to both short and full-course GCSEs in religious studies from this September. In some cases schools are reported to be ignoring their statutory duty to offer RE at all.”
That was the result of the rushed and ill-considered introduction of the English baccalaureate by the Secretary of State.
Kevin Brennan
Because the hon. Gentleman did not speak earlier, I shall give way.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. For the last two decades we have seen that schools will always teach to whatever they are measured on. The real risk of the English baccalaureate being drawn so narrowly is as the hon. Gentleman says. It is happening in my constituency; head teachers tell me that they are doing exactly that—rushing resources to the subjects that contribute to the E-bac to the detriment of all other subjects.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman, like me, is an ex-teacher and speaks from experience. He knows the impact of directives, missives or advice from the Department for Education.
The Times Educational Supplement of 13 May—last Friday—stated in its magazine:
“Even though RE is a statutory subject, the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education…has warned that some headteachers are allocating less, or no, time to RE. A poll of nearly 800 schools in January found that 30 per cent have cut time for RE. With less time devoted to their subject, and potentially fewer pupils and funding, there are fears about job losses in non-EBac subjects.”
That, of course, includes RE. The article then states:
“With RE, the DfE argues that because it is a statutory subject, it will be protected. In the past, Mr Gove has said that ‘high-quality religious education is a characteristic of the very best schools; faith schools and non-faith schools’. But the RE community is not convinced. Mike Castelli, who sits on the RE Council of England and Wales and is principal lecturer in education at Roehampton University, is under no illusions that the statutory nature of the subject will protect its importance in school. ‘What secured it was Ofsted inspections, but Ofsted now doesn't report on the curriculum in detail,’ he says. ‘Therefore there’s no comeback to headteachers who decide they don’t want to put RE on at GCSE level. The fact that RE is statutory is not doing what the Government thinks it is doing.”
I could go on, but there is not enough time. I say to the Schools Minister that the situation is the result of ill-considered, non-evidence-based policy being introduced without consultation. The Government should drop this approach to making education policy. The Minister is not malevolent, but misguided. He will have to do a U-turn, and he is lucky that he will have to do it with regard to RE, because he knows that, in this case, for sinners redemption is available.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate and on her opening speech, which set out the argument extremely well. This issue has engendered a large volume of correspondence from hon. Members and the Churches. We believe that religious education is an important subject. In fact, it is the only subject that has been a compulsory part of the school curriculum since 1944. The Education Reform Act 1988 made religious education a fundamental part of the basic curriculum, as opposed to the national curriculum, in all maintained schools. Its unique status signifies the special position that religious education holds in reflecting the traditions and beliefs that underpin contemporary society.
RE is central to the aim of the school curriculum, which is to promote the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children and young people and to help prepare them for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) appeared to be proposing the ending of compulsory RE in the curriculum, which is an argument that we will resist. As a Government, we are committed to retaining RE as a compulsory subject to the age of 16, notwithstanding the increasing volume of the secular lobby. Unlike the previous Government, this Administration are committed to faith schools. We value the enormous contribution that they make to our education system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has acknowledged.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who said that RE helps to promote community cohesion. RE, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, should be relevant to all pupils’ background and beliefs. Crucially, the content of the RE syllabus is determined by the locally agreed syllabus conferences, which are appointed by the local standing advisory councils for religious education. Those councils know their communities and understand their needs. It is important that they have the freedom to design an RE curriculum that is relevant and valued by their community.
Less prescription in the curriculum will achieve better teaching. It will enable teachers to do what only they can, which is to engage and inspire their pupils. The national curriculum review aims to prescribe only the essential knowledge and concepts that children should know and be taught, and to leave the professionals to determine how to teach them. We must get away from the mentality that says that, just because a topic or subject is important, it has to be specified in the national curriculum. Moreover, just because something is not in the national curriculum does not mean that it is not important. That same principle applies to what is or is not incorporated into the English baccalaureate.
RE has a locally developed syllabus, which is based on the minimum prescription established in law, and we do not intend to change that. We want schools to have greater freedom because central prescription and the uniformity that it implies do not necessarily produce the best outcomes.
I can assure my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that academies and free schools are required to teach RE as a condition of their funding agreement, which reflects the importance that the Government attach to the subject.
Mr Gibb
I will come on to why we have included history and geography in a moment, which relates to significant drops in the proportion of the cohort taking both history and geography.
I recognise that there are many concerns about the fact that the non-inclusion of religious studies in the humanities component of the English baccalaureate could have an adverse impact on the study of the subject. The E-bac recognises those pupils and those schools that succeed in securing achievement in the core subjects of English language, mathematics, the sciences, a language and history or geography, which reflects what happens in other high-performing countries. Singapore, for example, has compulsory O-levels in English language, mother tongue, maths, combined humanities and science. In France, the brevet is made up of exams in French, maths, history, geography and civics. In Japan, all students at the end of junior high school at the age of 15 are tested in Japanese, social studies, maths, science and English, depending on the prefecture. In Alberta, there are compulsory tests at 15 in maths, science, social studies, English and French. In Poland, 16-year-olds are tested in humanities, Polish, maths, science and a foreign language.
We deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small enough to enable pupils to study other subjects, such as music, art, RE, economics or vocational subjects. My concern is that the core academic subjects of the English baccalaureate—English, maths, science, a language, history or geography—are being denied to too many pupils, especially the more disadvantaged. In 2010, only 8% of pupils eligible for free school meals were entered for the English baccalaureate subjects, with only 4% achieving them. Of the 24% of non-free school meal pupils who took the E-bac, 17% achieved it.
In 719 maintained mainstream schools, no pupil entered any of the single award science GCSEs. No pupil was entered for French in 169 secondary schools. No pupil was entered for geography in 137 schools and no pupil was entered for history in 70 schools.
John Pugh
May I disabuse the Minister of his view that I was arguing for a change in the legal status of RE? I was trying to explore whether there are good arguments that he could give that are rationales for making the subject compulsory, which would not be good arguments for making it an option within the baccalaureate.
Mr Gibb
The arguments would be the same except that it is unnecessary to make RE a component of the English baccalaureate, because it is already compulsory by law. That is the reasoning behind our decision not to include RE in the humanities component.
RE is clearly a popular and successful subject. Judging by the increasing proportion of students who take a GCSE, it is one that is taught to an academically rigorous standard. There has been an increase in RE GCSEs from 16% of the cohort in 2000 to 28% in 2010. In addition, 36% of the cohort was entered for the short course GCSE in religious studies. By contrast, there has been a decline in the numbers entered for GCSE in history, geography and languages.
Mr Gibb
I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am running out of time.
The proportion of young people attempting geography GCSE dropped from 37% in 2000 to 26% last year. Modern languages dropped from 79% in 2000 to 43% in 2010. Of course 79% of pupils in the independent sector attempted at least one foreign language in 2010. We are determined to close the attainment gap between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds, and this is one tool in our toolbox to achieve that.
Our hope and expectation is that the English baccalaureate will encourage more students to study history, geography and languages. As it is compulsory to study RE until the age of 16, students will continue to take RS GCSEs in addition to the English baccalaureate subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) proposed having a humanity component of two out of three options, including RE, in the humanities block. We have considered that, and we will continue to review it. The concern is that that will extend the size of the E-bac to seven or eight GCSEs, making it less small and therefore restricting the space for vocational education, music and the arts and for those who do not want to study RE to GCSE.
Forensic Science Service
(13 years, 7 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
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I am also pleased to secure this debate on the future of the Forensic Science Service.
My interest in this subject began with a visit from one of my constituents, who works as a senior forensic scientist at the northern firearms unit in Manchester. It was at his invitation that I was able to visit that facility, which is part of the wider FSS. I intend to say a little more about the unit later in my speech, but first I want to say that my constituency owes a wider debt to the work of the FSS.
I am sure that Members are familiar with the crimes of Dr Harold Shipman. He was a trusted family doctor in my constituency who murdered more than 200 of his patients in what remains this country’s worst case of a serial killer. Without the detailed toxicology evidence that the FSS offered to the courts, it is questionable whether the extent of his killings would ever have been proven. This single example is a powerful reminder of the capacity that the FSS gives to our law enforcement agencies.
The 1,100 highly trained staff in the FSS have the skills and expertise to identify an offender or unravel the chain of events that led to a crime, often from studying no more than a pattern of blood, a strand of hair or the tread-markings left by a shoe. Their unrivalled range of expertise includes the analysis of documents, mobile phones, toxicology, marks and traces, DNA, firearms, fibres and hair. Their analysis has helped to secure convictions in 220 so-called “cold cases”, and a further 600 cases are actively under review. Among their groundbreaking achievements was the establishment of the world’s first national DNA database. The FSS is now based in four laboratories across the country and it deals with up to 120,000 cases a year, regardless of their complexity. The quality of its meticulous work has earned the FSS the respect of experts from around the globe.
In December 2010, the Government announced that the FSS will close by the end of March 2012. As I understand it, the Government hope that the closure of the FSS will increase competition. They believe that the vacuum created by its absence will immediately be filled by private providers and in-house police force provision, and they hope that by creating a more commercial market prices will be driven down and turnaround times improved.
I have real fears, however, that the absence of the FSS will impact on the quality of justice in the courts. I know that no Member would want to back proposals that would directly result in our losing the ability to carry out this kind of work. I hope that raising these concerns today will lead the Government to take a second look at their plans.
Any changes to the FSS must have the integrity of our judicial system at their core. There are still too many questions about the scope and quality of the provision that will be available following the closure of the FSS. In my remarks today, I will consider whether the high standards, impartiality and scope of the current provision will survive under the Government’s proposals; I will question the financial argument being put by the Government; and I will ask whether the Minister is willing to risk serious damage to the quality of justice by implementing these reforms.
As I mentioned previously, my concern about this issue began when I recently visited the northern firearms unit, which is part of the FSS. My visit was at the invitation of a constituent who has worked in this sector for more than 24 years and is deeply concerned by the Government’s plans. He is one of several specialists at the unit who are called on to support the police at scenes of shootings around the clock, 365 days a year. Their laboratory analysis can shed important light on the circumstances surrounding a crime. By looking at wounds, blood patterns and bullet casings, they can determine how a person was shot, the number of weapons involved and even if the same gun has been involved in other shootings. The unit has played a major role in solving a number of high-profile gun crimes and in achieving the subsequent convictions.
The unit’s success relies, however, on the flexibility to devote the time necessary to each investigation. Staff at the unit fear that many of their successes might not have been possible within the financial constraints of a more commercial market. They also fear that private providers are unlikely to offer the guaranteed on-call service that is required. I am sure that private companies will bid for the work of the FSS, but the risk is that they will cherry-pick the quickest, least labour-intensive and most profitable parts, which could have a serious impact on the quality of justice delivered by our court system.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I agree with the points that he is making. Does he agree that another factor to consider is that the FSS, which I have also visited, keeps an awful lot of DNA samples taken from crime scenes, and that it seems that the Government have not given much thought to what will happen to all those samples when the FSS closes? The work done by the FSS is far too important for us simply to hope that something will be put in its place. The Government need to ensure that something is in place before they go ahead with the closure of the FSS.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I absolutely agree with him. I will address the point he makes later in my speech.
I visited the firearms archive in Manchester, which is truly something to be seen. It is important not only for cross-referencing crimes with other crimes but for the expertise that goes with that work. Using the archive properly is absolutely crucial, but I understand that the Government have not yet decided what will happen to it. The future of the archive is very important.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I will be cautious in my remarks because I am Chair of the Science and Technology Committee and we are in the middle of an inquiry into this issue. I am pleased to see that two of my assiduous colleagues on the Committee—the hon. Members for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe)—are in Westminster Hall for this debate; they both play an important role on the Committee.
One strand of evidence given by many people is about the Birmingham archive for the FSS, which is the central records store of the FSS operation. Everyone is arguing that the archive needs to be kept intact and protected and made accessible for the investigations that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has referred to. Following his own research, does he agree that protecting the Birmingham archive is a necessary part of the process?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree absolutely and I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, and indeed other members of the Select Committee for attending today. I have read through much of the evidence they have received. Given the limited time for this debate, it is not possible to go through all the evidence, but my hon. Friend’s point about the Birmingham archive is particularly important and I hope the Minister will be able to offer us some assurance about the archive.
The northern firearms unit, which I visited, is just one of many disciplines offered by the FSS. It is a small but significant cog in a much larger wheel. No private provider is currently able to offer the same breadth of forensic services and expertise as the FSS, whose holistic approach is a clear benefit to our judicial system. By offering such a comprehensive range of services, it is in an unrivalled position to determine what is required from a crime scene and to provide the data.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The FSS has a range of responsibilities and inputs. Does he agree that, given the unfortunate potential for a rise in terrorist offences—or at least the threat of terrorist offences—as well as the more regular criminal activity that the FSS deals with as part of the justice system, there are concerns about resilience in dealing with terror?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree. Our capacity to deal with an incident such as a major terrorist incident is one of the most pressing problems that we face. I think that we would all agree that, whatever the costs involved, we simply cannot be without the capacity to respond to such incidents appropriately.
By working across a range of services, the FSS offers a holistic approach that allows its specialists to evaluate the relative importance of any crime scene before a case goes to court. Without that holistic approach, the danger is that analysis of a crime scene would have to be delivered piecemeal by different providers. That would introduce unnecessary confusion and possibly compromise justice.
In addition, there is the challenge of maintaining standards if the FSS is closed. The ability to determine that current levels of accuracy are maintained will be crucial. At present, members of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, such as the FSS, must be accredited. However, with the exception of those dealing with DNA, there are no statutory requirements for forensic science companies or in-house police departments to comply with any published standards. Few of us would think that these plans to close the FSS could come into force until stronger requirements were in place to ensure that all providers must meet minimum standards.
Moreover, that step would have financial implications of its own. I understand that the Government have already made it clear that additional funds would not be available for police forces that wished to increase their own laboratory capacity. If the police choose to increase their in-house provision of forensic services, they will also have to address the issue of impartiality. We are well aware of the importance of justice being seen to be done as well as being done, but where the police are both the forensic science provider and customer, questions are bound to be asked. Of course, among the incidents that are likely to cause concern are those involving police officers themselves.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the police have already taken a great deal of forensic science in-house, and that the trend in the marketplace, which perhaps has led to some of the current problems, has been caused by the police doing that and leaving less and less for people to fight over?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise that point. The statistics show that income from the sector has decreased as functions have been taken in-house. A point that I would like to address later in my speech is that some functions can be taken in-house but others cannot, and we must maintain that capacity.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time in giving way. Further to the point my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has just made, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, although the Government have to take some action because of the FSS’s financial situation, the market that their strategy seeks to create is being diminished each year by the increasing level of police in-house provision?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes. The hon. Gentleman’s point is crucial because, if the market is not rigorous and robust, there will be nothing there to fill the gap created by the absence of the FSS.
As well as being active in the immediate aftermath of a crime, the FSS also secures convictions in so-called cold cases. Over many years, it has built up archives of more than 1.5 million case files and a vast number of retained materials, including DNA, fibres and recovered debris. The application of advanced forensic techniques to archive material by FSS scientists has helped to secure convictions for more than 220 historical crimes. That work would not be possible without the archives, but we do not know what will happen to them when the FSS is closed. Other Members have made that point, and the Government dearly need to address it. In addition, we do not know what will happen to the unrivalled collection of firearms currently in the FSS’s possession.
The dissolution of the FSS will clearly require something to emerge to fill its place and continue its important work. The Government have claimed that there is no reason to think that the private sector would be unable to meet the demand for forensic services; but where, Minister—as the FSS itself might ask—is the evidence? As uncertainty continues to surround the provision of forensic science services in the UK, significant numbers of scientists are taking up jobs overseas or choosing to move on to other careers, and the coverage offered by the current private forensic science providers is broad in neither scope nor geography. I am told, for instance, that not one provider in the south of England specialises in firearms. Following the reduction in the market, questions have been asked about the financial stability of a number of accredited private providers. Can the Minister tell us what safeguards there will be to ensure that all the required forensic specialisms are available in the new marketplace?
We also need to ask what will happen in the wake of a major terrorist incident. In the immediate aftermath of the bombings and attempted bombings of 7 and 21 July, more than 100 FSS scientists were called on to analyse 4,500 items. Drawing on those experts in DNA, document examination, mobile phone analysis, toxicology, and marks and traces, it was possible to determine what had happened. Thankfully, such incidents are not commonplace, but the warning this week reminds us that we never know when the next incident might be—we know only that there is likely to be one.
The FSS is the only UK organisation with forensic experience of terrorist attacks. Without it, who would have the capability and capacity to provide the vital evidence that our judicial system requires? It is not acceptable to leave the UK unable to deal with the aftermath of a major terrorist attack, and if the Government cannot prove that their plans have the rigour to cope, they should withdraw them immediately and think again.
When there are so many unanswered questions and so many risks attached, I wonder why the Government have started down this path. I fear that they have made a mistake in reaching their decision to close the FSS, and that they will soon regret it. They have repeatedly insisted that the FSS—currently a Government-owned company—makes monthly losses of about £2 million, and I understand that they hope that a more commercial market will drive prices down and improve turnaround times. The Government’s plans, however, do not seem to add up.
In recent months, the FSS has closed down three laboratory sites and shed 750 staff as part of a drive to make itself more competitive. It is believed to be on track to make the required savings, yet the Government themselves admit that the £2 million figure they repeatedly use to justify their plans takes no account of the significant savings made by the restructuring programme.
We know that the service provided by the FSS is exceptionally good. I can say without hesitation that its work has made my city, my constituency and my community safer, and the same is true for other Members. I hope, therefore, that the Minister understands how concerned many of us are about the possibility of losing the FSS and is able to offer me some solid assurances in his response today.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I echo other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing this debate. I am aware of the importance of this issue and the sensitivities that surround it. Forensic science is clearly a vital tool of the criminal justice system and one which deserves proper consideration by this House.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Harold Shipman case, which is just one of the most dramatic—in many ways terrible, obviously—of the many cases in which forensic science plays a vital role. The Forensic Science Service has had a proud tradition of providing an excellent, professional service to the whole criminal justice system, but its financial circumstances meant that decisive action was needed to maintain the continuity of supply of forensic services to that system. In the end, I think that what all our constituents will most care about is that the system continues in an efficient fashion.
Let me go through why the announcement has had to be made and answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and by other Members on both sides of the House. The situation that led to the Government’s announcement to manage the closure of the FSS last December is clear: the challenging forensics market put the FSS in serious financial difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman said, the FSS had monthly operating losses of about £2 million and faced the prospect of further shrinkage in demand for forensic services. The Government have invested significant amounts of money in recent years in restructuring the FSS, but the downturn in the forensics market unfortunately meant that further investment in restructuring the company was no longer a viable option.
We considered three options to resolve the financial difficulties faced by the FSS: uncontrolled administration, further restructuring of the company, and a managed wind-down. Without the prospect of further financial help, the FSS board would have been forced to place the company into administration in early 2011. Uncontrolled administration would have seriously damaged the forensics capability available to the criminal justice system, and we were not prepared to take that risk. From everything that the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, I imagine he would agree that such a risk should not have been countenanced in any way. Although further restructuring would have had less impact on the criminal justice system than losing the FSS overnight, it would not have solved the key underlying problem of reduced customer demand. The FSS had already received a £50 million grant for restructuring, and although it has significantly reduced the size of its business, the market has continued to contract. The FSS’s share of the market has also shrunk as other competent companies have won police contracts through the police procurement process. That, combined with EU state aid and competition law constraints, meant that further restructuring was simply no longer viable.
I strongly believe that the managed wind-down of the FSS is the right choice, both financially and for the criminal justice system. Several Members have asked about the attitude of other people within the criminal justice system. We consulted key partners across the system before making this decision, and their collective view is that a managed closure is in the best interests of the system as a whole.
Andrew Miller
I would be the first to acknowledge that the GovCo process had not been as successful as was hoped. What worries me about the position taken by the Minister and his colleagues is that no one can tell us what the economic facts are. Simply talking about the FSS’s expenditure is not adequate; we need to know the capital expenditure on forensic science—programmes past and present—of every police authority, but neither the Home Office nor the Association of Chief Police Officers can provide that information. Until that information is available, I am afraid that the Minister will have a hard job convincing people of what might be a meritorious case.
Damian Green
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have read the evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), a few weeks ago. He was pressed for that information, and undertook to go away and find it out. The hon. Gentleman said that he requires the full economic case. The starkest economic point is simply that the FSS is draining money away. Money has been put into restructuring, and it has not worked. As he said, the previous Government set up a GovCo in an attempt to solve the problem, but sadly, that has not worked. We knew that we could not carry on as before. The Government were faced with a set of options, and I am trying to explain why we chose what we did.
Andrew Miller
I understand where the Minister is coming from, and we have been told today that the Home Office cannot provide that information because it is impossible to calculate, but the starkest economic fact is that we do not know how we are managing public money that has been spent on forensic science. Surely it must be the Minister’s highest priority to work out that conundrum.
Damian Green
It is certainly a priority, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the operational expenditure of individual police forces is a matter for chief constables. [Interruption.] He makes a gesture, but it would be wrong for Home Office Ministers to try to detail every piece of expenditure by every police force in the country. By going down that route, we have over-managed police forces and other public services, to their detriment. I am afraid he will have to bite the bullet: allowing the police operational independence is an important way to improve the service.
Philip Davies
On the operational independence of the police, the Minister will be aware that some of the fiercest criticism of the closure of the FSS has come from police chief constables, including the chief constable of South Yorkshire, who said that it would
“have a ‘disproportionate effect’ on forces in Yorkshire and the North East because they are more reliant on the service than constabularies elsewhere.”
If the views of the police are so important, will he bear in mind their views on the closure of the FSS?
Damian Green
Absolutely. My hon. Friend leads me neatly into what I was about to say. The Association of Chief Police Officers, in particular, is clear that the forensic markets can cope with the managed wind-down of the FSS, and ACPO has been closely involved in the process being carried out by the Government.
To address the fears about uncertainty, the managed wind-down of the FSS will allow time for the restructuring of the timetable for tendering new contracts, for the re-tendering of existing FSS contracts and for other forensic suppliers to develop their capacity to meet any additional requirements. That approach will also enable the FSS’s business and assets to be transferred in order to build a healthy market around other existing forensic suppliers, which already account for about 35% of the forensics market. That is clearly a significant point. Some may think that there is no one out there and this is a leap in the dark, but more than one third of the market is already in the hands of other operators.
Jonathan Reynolds
Does the Minister accept that many of the prices currently offered by private sector providers are the result of competition with the FSS? If that is taken away, there is a chance that the marketplace could consolidate or prices could rise, which would not be in our interests. Further to that, many of the people in that specialist area have been trained by the FSS. As I understand it, private sector providers’ prices do not take into account the increased cost base of training their own people to be as skilled as they need to be to cover all the specialisms currently being covered.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that competition drives prices down and makes industries more efficient. That is a universal truth. However, a competitive market exists, and the managed wind-down of the FSS will enable the individual players in that market to become more competitive and the market itself to become a more effective area of competition.
The Government want the UK’s forensic science industry to operate as a genuine market, with private sector providers competing to provide innovative services at the lowest cost. That will, inter alia, preserve police resources and maximise the positive impact that forensic sciences can have on tackling crime. A competitive market can help drive down prices and improve turnaround times, meaning that serious crimes can be cleared up more quickly and efficiently. Ultimately, I am sure that that is what we all want.
Research and development in forensic science is essential to ensure the continued availability of a high-quality, efficient forensic science capability for the criminal justice system. Historically, such research has been undertaken by a wide range of organisations, including the private sector, Government-owned laboratories and academia.
Our decision took into account the need to manage the impact on forensic science research and development in the UK. Unfortunately, the FSS’s financial position had already limited the capacity for research and development for which it had become renowned. During the managed wind-down, we are working closely with the police, the FSS, the Crown Prosecution Service and other forensic providers to consider how the industry can build on existing expertise and continue the UK’s renowned research and innovation.
Gavin Barwell
The Minister outlined the options that the Government considered when taking the decision. Did they consider restricting the police’s ability to provide in-house forensic services? That might have given the FSS a larger market in which to compete. As he will know if he has studied the evidence received by the Select Committee, many private sector suppliers have expressed concerns about their ability to invest in the future in a declining market if police provision continues to increase.
Damian Green
I am aware of the evidence given to the Select Committee. Perhaps this is a good time for me to address directly the question of how objective the advice given to police forces on forensic science will be if the service is provided in-house. The evidential value and integrity of forensic exhibits is tested under the intense scrutiny of the courts—from the point of collection, through analysis to interpretation and reporting. Each step in the process must be able to withstand such critical review, not least because the first body that the police must convince in any prosecution is the CPS. That is now an independent function. Fears that something untoward will happen if an individual police force does its own forensics in-house can be overstated.
Keeping one eye on the clock, I will deal directly with one or two other points raised in the debate. On the question of what will happen to the FSS’s archives, the Government obviously recognise their importance in academic terms and, perhaps even more importantly, to the investigation of cold cases. The forensic transition board has set up an archiving project board with members from the Home Office, the FSS, ACPO and key partners across the criminal justice system to recommend options for the handling and retention of FSS records so that historical data remain available to the criminal justice system. As part of that, we will seek to ensure that the necessary expertise remains to work on the data and mine them in the future.
Doubt was expressed about whether private providers will be able to cope, particularly with a major incident such as 7/7. As I mentioned, ACPO has made it clear that the forensics market can cope with the managed wind-down of the FSS. An orderly wind-down, which is what we are managing, will allow adequate time for the current forensics framework to be restructured, for existing FSS contracts to be re-tendered and for other suppliers to increase their capability. We are reviewing the FSS functions as part of the process of managed closure. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is the Minister responsible for crime and security, has kept Members informed of the Government’s plans so far and will continue to do so, particularly those Members who have forensic science sites in their constituencies.
The Government are aware that the decision to manage the closure of the FSS has put employees and their families in a difficult position. My hon. Friend has personally—
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. We must move on to the next debate.
Problem Gambling
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
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
The gambling sector is a highly successful industry in this country, employing more than 100,000 people and contributing more than £1.4 billion to the Exchequer in betting and gambling duty alone. A large majority of the British public enjoy gambling as a leisure activity, with 73% of the UK population participating last year alone, which is an increase of 5% from 2007. In his excellent book, “Gambling: A Healthy Bet”, Patrick Basham finds that gamblers tend to participate more in community and social activities than non-gamblers and donate more to charity. However, for a small proportion—0.9%, according to the latest prevalent study—gambling can develop into a problem that negatively affects their lives.
What we must bear in mind, however, is that 0.9% is a very small amount. Many experts in the field have concluded that the small rise in the number of those with problem gambling in the latest prevalent study may not be a true representation of an increase in problem gambling; it may well be that problem gambling is both better reported and more socially acceptable today and that its true extent is now, therefore, becoming more apparent. Nevertheless, it is difficult to think of any other policy area in which 0.9% of the population affects Government policy as markedly as seems to be the case with gambling.
As with all other forms of addiction, there will always be a proportion of the population who are addicted to gambling. It is impossible to eliminate addiction, no matter how much money, how many programmes or how much treatment is provided. The blame for an addiction should not be placed at the industry’s door, because it is not the industry itself that makes people addicts—it merely offers a service—but the individuals themselves. We should therefore treat the problem, which is the person concerned, and stop attacking the product.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that bookmakers in particular are saturating many of our high streets, particularly in London? Although a few shops might satisfy demand, a proliferation of them and an increase to nine or 10 shops on one stretch of high road can, frankly, only promote gambling and addictive behaviour among the poorest.
Philip Davies
No, I am not. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a bee in his bonnet about this issue, but I do not share his concern. I believe in the free market and the market of supply and demand. If there is not enough demand to meet the supply of those shops, they will close down. I am sure that he would prefer high streets to have betting shops rather than shops that have been boarded over and are ripe for vandalism. I certainly welcome betting shops moving on to the high street when other shops will not.
It is for the reason that I have outlined that I disagree with the premise that the gambling industry should be compelled to fund the treatment of problem gambling. It seems absurd, especially as fast-food companies such as Burger King and Krispy Kreme do not fund research into and the treatment of obesity. I used to work for Asda and I cannot remember anybody saying that Asda was expected to fund treatment of obesity just because we happened to sell cream cakes down one of our aisles. It seems that gambling is treated on a completely different basis from those other industries.
Discussion of the issue also strikes me as disproportionate. The gambling industry’s funding target is set at £6 million for 2011 and £7 million for 2012. In contrast, the Portman Group, another highly regarded organisation, raised £6.3 million between 2007 and 2009 for their trust’s education and campaigning work. Given that the UK alcoholic drinks industry is valued at more than £30 billion, the demands on the gambling sector seem less than fair or consistent, to say the least.
Nevertheless, we are where we are for the time being. Given that the industry is pouring so much money into the issue, and given that it has the greatest vested interest of all in the money being spent wisely and in being successful in reducing problem gambling, does the Minister not agree that it would be fairer and make more sense if it had a greater role in how the money that it gives is spent?
In October 2008, the Gambling Commission recommended the establishment of a new structure to raise and distribute funding for gambling research, education and treatment. The previous Labour Government insisted that if a voluntary agreement was not reached, they would intervene and ensure that a statutory levy was installed. I am interested to hear the Minister’s definition of “voluntary”, because that certainly is not what I understand the term to mean.
As a result, new bodies were created. The GREaT Foundation—Gambling Research, Education and Treatment —raises funds for research, education and treatment of problem gambling by collecting voluntary donations from the gambling industry. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board advises Ministers and the Gambling Commission on priorities of funding, and the Responsible Gambling Fund is an independent charity that was set up to distribute the money raised. In addition, there are three expert advisory panels. Can the Minister explain why we need all of those? Why can the body that raises the money not be trusted also to allocate it? In short, we appear to have a bureaucratic nightmare—not to mention the cost. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board costs about £250,000 a year just to run, which does not give any benefit to those suffering from problem gambling.
Almost half the funding last year was given to a charity called GamCare, which is the leading provider of information, advice, support and free counselling for the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. GamCare has established a responsible gambling code of practice and certification process that have been adopted by many of the successful betting companies. The 11-point code consists of an age verification-parental supervision process, encourages a balanced advertising and promotional message for gambling companies, and allows customers to set a daily, weekly or monthly deposit limit on their gambling accounts.
Other initiatives include a self-exclusion policy whereby customers can close their accounts for six months, after which they must present a written case for why they should be allowed to use their accounts again. Customers can also limit their session times for games or events that have no natural end, which provides them with greater control over their gambling. Employees in gambling companies also receive responsible gambling awareness training, which assists them in identifying the triggers and causes of problem gambling and raises awareness of the relevant support agencies and the policies, processes and regulatory requirements that surround the gambling industry.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman see a role for educationlists or schools in helping to educate young people about the danger of gambling addiction?
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I encourage him to read Patrick Basham’s book, “Gambling: A Healthy Bet”, which talks about how developing an understanding of risk at an earlier age is good for people in terms of not just gambling, but their skills for the rest of their lives. I certainly think that there is much merit in what Patrick Basham writes in his book.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is currently no GamCare treatment provider available on Merseyside? The closest is in Manchester. Does he know whether that will be addressed?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is, as ever, on the ball with what is happening in her area. She has quickly established a reputation for herself as a champion of her constituents and her area. She is absolutely right that Merseyside currently lacks a GamCare treatment facility. It is not GamCare’s fault; its provider had funding from other agencies taken away, so it has closed down. I know that GamCare shares my hon. Friend’s concern that there should be a provider on Merseyside, and I hope that it will be able to find a replacement provider soon for the benefit of her constituents.
GamCare has established a national helpline with an international reputation and an infrastructure delivering counselling to 70% of the country. The helpline, including a net-line live chat service and forum, provides a service for gamblers and others affected by gambling. The helpline receives about 1,000 calls a week. It offers help and support to people in crisis, some of them suicidal. GamCare’s professionally trained advisers explore the best way to support the caller by signposting them to debt advice, family therapy, self-exclusion or further counselling.
In 2010-11, GamCare provided sustained confidential counselling for some 2,500 people, which is 20% more than the previous year. GamCare also worked closely with the National Problem Gambling clinic in London to provide the best treatment for customers. And it works; some two thirds of the problem gamblers it treats are no longer problem gamblers at the end of their treatment. At the beginning of counselling, 88% of GamCare’s clients are assessed as problem gamblers; by the end of treatment, that figure is 28%.
GamCare has calculated the cost-benefit analysis of its treatment. It has estimated that each problem gambler costs the state about £8,000 a year. With 450,000 problem gamblers in the UK, that could mean an annual bill of about £3.5 billion. By contrast, GamCare has estimated that, on average, it costs just £650 to treat each individual. With two-thirds of clients successfully ceasing to be problem gamblers at the end of their treatment, that produces a return on investment that is greater than 8:1—compared with the treatment for drug users, where the return is estimated at just 2.5:1. That surely highlights that the money is well spent and that expanding the service should be a priority.
GamCare has recently launched a new e-learning package, with the aim of helping more companies to improve their standards of player protection. Considering that there are 127,500 people under the age of 24 with a gambling problem in the UK, GamCare is ready to introduce education into schools and for parents and to open the communication lines with GPs. That is all ready to go if the funding is in place. However, at a time when more money than ever is available—a funding target of £6 million this year and £7 million next year—the industry is seeing more and more of it swept up into burgeoning bureaucracy.
In particular, the Responsible Gambling Fund established under the previous Government is crippling front-line services, which is where the money is needed most. In 2009-10, the RGF spent almost £500,000 on staff costs and overheads, including £51,000 on consultancy. Even more interestingly, it is estimated that those costs will have risen by 10% for the year 2010-11. In an age of austerity, such an attempt at empire building is extremely worrying, and it is vital that we guard against the growth of a monster that constantly calls for more and more money, bigger and bigger budgets and more and more employees to deal with a problem that is being tackled effectively by organisations such as GamCare.
On top of that, the RGF is funding eight PhD studentships at an average of £20,000 a year to widen participation in gambling-related research as a means of informing public policy. That is a prime example of the unfocused nature of its research. In addition, the RGF has done very little on education for adolescents, while GamCare has already researched and outlined a fully costed actionable programme to implement. Can the Minister enlighten us about what research commissioned by the RGF has led to a major policy implementation that has made a real difference to reducing problem gambling? If he can do that, he is doing better than I can.
The people on the front line desperately need that money to fund treatment and to launch education and prevention programmes. By contrast, GamCare’s funding for 2010-11 has been frozen, which makes it difficult even to maintain existing services, let alone develop new ones. Furthermore, the RGF has decided that GamCare’s helpline should become a national problem gambling telephone helpline, thus throwing away the industry’s investment over many years in an established and successful service and brand.
GamCare is currently basing its programmes on interim funding on a month-by-month basis, when what it really needs is a strategic three-year funding programme. In fact, with the correct funding, GamCare could provide the treatment, education and prevention services—either itself or with the appropriate partners—for an annual cost of around £3.5 million a year. The Government should concentrate on ensuring that the money is well spent, rather than just ensuring that more and more money is being pumped into a situation where it is being badly spent. The structure that was put in place nearly three years ago is just not working. There has been time for it to prove itself and, sadly, it has failed. Most of the people involved in the industry would recognise that.
The answer to this conundrum is threefold: strip away the unnecessary levels of bureaucracy; let those experts on the front line, who know how to help people in trouble, get on with delivering and expanding their existing services; and put proper programmes quickly in place to educate those most in need.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport appeared before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I am a member, and expressed his concern about problem gambling and the importance that the Government attach to dealing with the matter. It is therefore the Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is a coherent strategy for education, prevention and treatment. The industry needs an effective body that makes good strategic decisions about risks and takes proportionate measures in terms of allocating funding to deal with problem gambling. The majority of the research should go to treatment providers and there is no justifiable reason why GamCare should not remain as the principal treatment provider and operator of the national helpline.
The industry, working directly with the charities, can step up to the plate and sort out the issue of problem gambling, but it would find it easier if it knew that it had the Minister’s support in stripping away bureaucracy, getting the money quickly to the front line and trusting the experts. I hope that the Minister will give me his assurance today that that is what the Government will do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr McCrea.
I will endeavour to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in order, if I possibly can. I am delighted that he has taken the trouble to air this important and potentially tremendously troubling issue in Parliament. It is a topic that does not get enough balanced and careful debate, and I therefore pay tribute to him for raising it. Some of the issues surrounding the problem deserve a fuller and more careful exploration and I welcome his initiative in seeking to do so.
I also welcome my hon. Friend’s opening comments. He is absolutely right to say that, for the vast majority of people, gambling is fine if it is done carefully and in moderation. In many cases, gambling causes no problems and is a source of innocent fun and enjoyment. It is the same as enjoying an occasional glass of wine or pint of beer—it causes no problem for anybody. He also rightly went on to say that, sadly, that is not the case for a small but real minority of people. I am sure that everybody here regrets and is concerned about the current figure of 0.9% of people who gamble turning into problem gamblers. In focusing on those unfortunate people and what we can do for them, however, we should not lose sight of the fact that, for the vast majority of people who participate in gambling, it is a harmless and enjoyable source of fun. He is absolutely right to put the matter in context and to lay out that framework before we get into the detail.
I must confess that I was a little concerned when my hon. Friend started to make the point that he is not sure whether gambling companies should be funding research and help for problem gambling. He then moderated his point a bit and said that it is entirely reasonable—he gave the example of the Portman Group in the drinks industry and in doing so seemed to accept the principle—for companies involved in these kinds of industries to contribute something. His point is not that it is wrong in principle; rather he is arguing about the level of contribution. It is important we accept that principle and that all hon. Members agree that companies involved in such an industry, whether we are talking about alcohol or gambling, accept that they have a broader social duty to act and behave responsibly towards the small minority of people whom their products potentially harm.
Mr Lammy
The Minister has paid some attention to the small proportion of problem gamblers, as has the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Does he recognise that the prevalence study also reveals that there has been a 50% increase in gambling in society since 2007? That is significant and of concern.
John Penrose
I completely accept what I think is the right hon. Gentleman’s underlying point: that one figure—it was just into the area of statistical significance, although it was right at the borderline—in the recent gambling prevalence survey shows that there has been an increase in the number of problem gamblers. That figure has partly been driven by the fact that more people are gambling, many of whom create no problem at all. However, the fact that the total number of gamblers has increased and that a proportion of those are problem gamblers means that there has been a statistically significant increase. He is absolutely right to point that out. I hope that I struck the right balance in my earlier remarks about the need to put that into context. We are not doing too badly internationally and, relatively speaking, other countries have higher proportions of people who are problem gamblers, but I am sure he agrees that that is absolutely no cause for either complacency or relaxation. We need to ensure that we remain alive to the matter, so I am glad that he made that intervention.
To return to the earlier comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, I am delighted that he accepts the principle that it is right for companies involved in this kind of industry to contribute and to remain responsible. To be fair, almost without exception, the vast majority of people I have met in the gambling and gaming industries are keen to ensure that they recognise and live up to that duty. They are delighted to let it be known that they want to do that. There is an acceptance in the industry, and I think in society as a whole, that that is appropriate for companies involved in the industry. There may be an argument about the level of collaboration and involvement, which is entirely appropriate, but there is a broad cross-party consensus.
I accept my hon. Friend’s point, however, that it is not only up to the industry. Clearly, Government and public health have a role. Organisations are starting to move into and participate in this area—the NHS has been participating for some time. It is interesting to note that—if I can call it this—the medicalisation of problem gambling is far less advanced than the medicalisation of other kinds of addiction. The treatment provided in the NHS for other kinds of addiction—for example, substance abuse—has been longer established than that provided for gambling addiction. There are moves in the NHS to do more, but he is right to say that there has to be a partnership between the industry and publicly-funded bodies to address the issue.
My hon. Friend has discussed the current arrangements. He is right to say that they have been in place for not quite two years. They stem from a report in 2008 and were implemented in 2009. I must confess that when I began my current role as Minister with responsibility for this issue, just under a year into the new arrangements, I looked at the history. It is true to say that there was a series of different attempts before the current arrangements were set up. I think that this is either the second or the third set of institutional architecture that has been imposed in this area. While there were people who made the precisely the same points as my hon. Friend on the concerns about the bureaucracy and cost in the current structure, a third or fourth reorganisation would have been something that both the industry, and to be fair problem gamblers, probably needed like a hole in the head at that point. He is, however, right to make the fundamental point. It is always correct for everybody to want to get the maximum possible value for money from any funds put towards treating an addiction problem, such as problem gambling. It is therefore sensible for us to look periodically at whether we are getting the best possible value for money.
The small caveat that I add to my hon. Friend’s remarks is that, yes, the Government need to be comfortable with this, but we also need to bear in mind that the organisations that he talked about are overwhelmingly—exclusively, in this case—funded by the industry itself. This is industry money, not public money. We are not talking about a public bureaucracy, or an executive agency of either my Department, the Department of Health or any other branch of Government. Those organisations are, rightly in my view, funded and organised by the industry, and they include people who are involved in treating and dealing with gambling addiction. They share a very heavy proportion of the burden of trying to ensure that the maximum possible value for money is achieved.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the new arrangements have been in place for nearly two years, so there is beginning to be enough of a track record to evaluate whether they are effective. In the course of the coming 12 months, that track record will be well bedded-in, and it will be sensible to start evaluating whether the value for money that everyone wants to see is being achieved. He is enunciating a very sensible principle. The plea that I would make, and the principle that I want us to establish, is that while Government clearly have an interest, we would expect the charities concerned and the industry to take a leading role as well.
Philip Davies
I welcome the comments that the Minister has made so far, and I agree with what he has just said. The industry needs to play a leading role. Will he accept, therefore, that it would be far better if the gambling industry, which funds all this, had much more of a say in how the money is spent to ensure that it is spent effectively? The industry pays the money, but it often has very little say in how it is actually spent.
John Penrose
That is a fair point, although it has a practical limit. It is perfectly reasonable for the gambling industry to be a force for good and to expect it to want to ensure that the money that it is donating is spent in an appropriate way. Other stakeholders will, none the less, want to be convinced that the gambling industry would not—I am sure that it would not, but this is the fear—give money and then direct the research into areas that were comfortable for the gambling industry, but not necessarily in the best interests of the wider issue of problem gambling. The gambling industry needs to push forward an agenda of value for money and the effective use of the cash that it is donating, but the gambling industry will need other stakeholders to create the right level of credibility in deciding where the money goes in the same way that the Government currently give money for academic research, but research funding councils decide which research projects are selected. That is correct, because otherwise there would always be the fear that the Government were funding academic research, in any area, into pet projects—politically convenient projects—rather than the ones that were academically pure. The same argument applies here.
Mr Lammy
The Minister makes a very good point. Is he concerned about the prevalence of fixed-odds betting terminals, particularly in bookmakers? That is a concern in other parts of the gambling industry. We also have two bookmakers currently paying their tax overseas. That is a concern, if we are talking about the overall quantum available for treating problem gamblers.
John Penrose
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I think goes back to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley: are there any examples of public policy research, funded by the Responsible Gambling Fund, that have made an impact on any of my decisions, or those of my predecessors?
One issue that I have raised with the RGF is that I am concerned that there is no significant research into establishing the kind of causal links, which I think the right hon. Gentleman suspects that there may be, between particular kinds of gambling and problem gambling. For example, many people believe that fixed-odds betting terminals are more likely to contribute to problem gambling than other kinds of gambling. The difficulty for someone in my position is that, while that is a widespread suspicion, there is no academically solid underpinning as yet to justify it. From my point of view, therefore, it is extremely difficult for any Gambling Minister to take effective decisions about whether particular kinds of gambling should be expanded or reduced, because there is not an adequate evidential basis on which to build a proper business case, or a proper political consensus. Into that vacuum rushes everybody with their favourite prejudice. Everybody has an answer about the reasons why we have this amount of problem gambling here and that amount of problem gambling there, but nobody has enough facts to form a solid evidential basis on which to build a reason for changing the law. I have therefore asked the various bodies to prioritise research that will provide that kind of evidential basis, and they have agreed to do so. Clearly, they must then decide what that will be—it needs to be at arm’s length from Government to be credible. In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, it is vital that we have that kind of evidential basis for the benefit of sensible and objective fact-based public policy making in future.
Philip Davies
Will the Minister also bear in mind the common-sense point that the number of machines in a particular shop cannot hinder problem gambling on the basis that somebody can only play on one at a time? That is like saying that if a pub has four different beers, and decides to extend that to 10, there will be an increase in alcoholism. That would clearly be nonsense, and I hope that the Minister will not let common sense fly out of the window when he looks at the research.
John Penrose
I am always happy to apply common sense. The particular example that my hon. Friend has chosen is perhaps unfortunate, because with the advent of the switch from £2 stakes to £1 stakes, there have been examples of people playing two machines at once, because they like playing with £2 stakes. I take his general point, however.
My hon. Friend has said, rightly, that he wants the industry to step up to the plate and take a lead in trying to sort out issues around problem gambling that cause concern. I share his view, and it is essential that both the industry and the other stakeholders do precisely that. The Government will certainly support any of their efforts to bring this issue under control.
Public Sector Jobs (Grimsby)
(13 years, 7 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
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to raise the issue of the transfer of between 20 and 30 compliance staff in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and 20 Valuation Office Agency staff out of Grimsby, where they are happily living and working. Grimsby is a very good place to live and work, but they are being transferred away, reluctantly in most cases. I raise the issue because the Treasury is responding this week, and the responsibility is HMRC’s.
The numbers are small, it is true. HMRC states in its impact assessment that they are
“less than 1% of those employed within the local authority area. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the local economy is not dependent on the HMRC presence at this office.”
That is true, but they are simply part of a wider exodus from Grimsby and other smaller centres produced by the concentration policy, designed to concentrate Government services in larger centres and so to dispose of property and to produce efficiency savings.
In the context of that wider problem, Dame Lesley Strathie, the chief executive of HMRC, is the new Moses—leading her people not into the promised land but out of it, because Grimsby is surely the promised land and the best place for those people to be. She is leading them instead into some traffic-jammed wasteland of a bigger city, where they do not want to be. That is counterproductive, expensive and wrong. They will all have to drive for well over an hour, at enormous expense, to a destination where they do not want to work or be. I apologise to the Minister, because he is dealing not only with the issue of HMRC staff but with the policy of concentration and its impact on Grimsby and other small centres.
The impact is damaging, and Grimsby has higher unemployment than most of the country, in common with a lot of other one-industry towns in which the industry has declined. Grimsby needs jobs—public sector jobs: 21% of employment in Grimsby is in the public sector, compared with 9% in a place such as Wokingham in the prosperous south. Any transfer or loss of public sector jobs, therefore, has a disproportionate effect in Grimsby.
We have a higher proportion of the work force in manual jobs in north-east Lincolnshire than in most of the rest of the country, and fewer people in white collar and managerial jobs. According to the figures, 20% of the work force are classified under the categories of managers, senior officials and professionals, as opposed to 30% for Great Britain overall.
It is a great shame that the founders or forefathers of Grimsby did not take the trouble to invent a Grimsby building society or a Grimsby insurance company, such as the Norwich or the Halifax, which can continue to give employment to local people. We have not got that. We need more white collar and professional jobs in the employment mix, not only to leaven the lump—I should not describe it as that—but to widen employment prospects, providing more diversity and a better choice of careers for young people growing up in Grimsby. Those are the very jobs being taken away from us, however, by transfers based on what I see as a series of wrong decisions—by an act of folly.
Let me turn to specifics and, in particular, to the HMRC tax compliance staff, who are widely praised. In our deliberations on the Public Accounts Committee, we praised them for their achievement in recouping tax and for their great service. They have been praised by HMRC itself. Twenty-nine of them work in Heritage house, which is available to them until 2021—I think it was built to house Government departments and services, and it is certainly co-owned by Mapeley Estates, of glorious memory.
I cannot see why there is a rush to leave Heritage house. Why the exodus? The heads of the Valuation Office Agency and the chief executive of HMRC give different reasons for moving out of Heritage house, which will still be available. People from other departments, notably the Crown Prosecution Service, are also fleeing. That is part of the wider problem. The exodus involves not only HMRC, the Valuation Office Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service, but VAT staff and, we now hear, Jobcentre Plus and Department for Work and Pensions staff. All of them are moving out of Grimsby. Why the exodus from Heritage house? What is the effect on Heritage house?
Those people do not need to leave Grimsby at all. The HMRC staff could certainly be transferred to Imperial house, which also houses Inland Revenue staff. Thanks to the reduction in the Revenue staff employed in Grimsby, the fourth floor is now vacant. HMRC has to hang on to it—the fourth floor cannot be lopped off and turned into an entertainment centre, disco or whatever, to alleviate the problems of the staff. If the staff have to be transferred from Heritage house, why can they not be transferred to the fourth floor of Imperial house, to work with the other tax staff?
They are not being offered that, however, and nor are they being offered the opportunity to work from home, which they told me they could do. Instead, the proposal is to transfer them to Hull or to Cromwell house in Lincoln. The chief executive of HMRC told me that the policy was to
“consolidate its teams into fewer sites and place more location-specific work into larger, more efficient teams in urban centres.”
That will be costly, because both Hull and Lincoln are more than an hour and a quarter’s drive away. If people are transferred to Hull rather than Lincoln, they will have to pay £30 a week in toll charges on the Humber bridge—an expensive business which, incidentally, was not mentioned in the impact survey.
If staff who are transferred must travel for more than an hour—these people will be travelling for well over an hour and a quarter—their travelling expenses must be paid for five years and not only for three years. The department’s calculations are made on the basis of three years’ payment of travelling expenses, for 27 staff I think, at a total cost of £492,000. I think it would be a higher figure than that to transfer those staff to Lincoln: probably £600,000 or more, because they have to be paid for five years given the distance involved. That is deemed by the Treasury to be taxable income. We are taking on a major expense for a minimal service, and shuffling expenditure from the property portfolio to continuous travel expenses. If staff are transferred to Cromwell house, they will arrive there knackered. The drive is not pleasant—I do it quite often—and the drive to Halton is even worse. I like going to Lincoln, but it is unpleasant driving there, particularly at peak travel time.
I am not sure whether it is HMRC’s intention that compliance staff should arrive at Lincoln after an hour-and-a-half drive exhausted and bad tempered, so that they will be more aggressive with the claims they deal with and produce an even greater return. I hope that is not the intention, but it will certainly be the effect. The work done by HMRC staff is not local but non-specific; however, that done by VOA staff is largely local. In the recent fracas about retrospective property valuations, VOA did not have enough staff to complete them. They should have been done from 2006 onwards, but there were not finished until 2010 because of staff shortages arising from efficiency decisions. Yet it is proposed to move staff.
The problem varies in each department, but the overall transfer of not only HMRC staff but staff in other departments is damaging to the employment mix in Grimsby and the recruitment prospects of young Grimbarians, and is unnecessary. I am sorry to say that it will also be damaging to the work, morale and lives of the staff who will be shuttled around willy-nilly, because they do not want to go. They like living and working in Grimsby, which is understandable; I do, too. Why must they move when it would be cheaper for them to continue working in Grimsby, it is expensive to move them to Lincoln, and there is existing office space in Grimsby?
The policy is short-sighted and wrong. It is yesterday’s policy from the mid-noughties, and it is being forced on today’s work force at a time when unemployment is higher than when the policy was arrived at. I have been arguing and have had extensive correspondence with the chief executive of HMRC, who is a courteous and place-worthy lady, and the chief executive of VOA, but it is like arguing with a speak-your-weight machine. Their replies are about a policy that was forced on them when they took over their jobs. The correspondence has not been satisfactory, and their letters always end, “I hope you find this helpful.” Frankly, I do not, because they do not respond to my points. The policy is dictated by the need for economy and efficiency savings, but it will work against both because staff will not be more efficient after an hour-and-a-half drive to work, and it will not be economic to pay them £200,000 a year in travel expenses to do so.
The answer is not to take staff from Grimsby, but to transfer them to Grimsby. It is a good place to live and work. Office expenses are low, and rents per square foot are much lower than in the big centres where it is proposed staff should be transferred. Staff like being there, and do not want to leave. Why pursue at this late stage an expensive policy of concentration when staff who must be transferred could come to Grimsby, where office rents are lower, where staff can live more cheaply in the real world, and where they prefer to be? The problem with Grimsby is its name—I did not give it its name—and it is anything but grim as a place to live. That should be recognised, because people can live there more economically and have a more satisfactory life in a smaller urban centre than in a big city. It is time to reverse the priorities and to bring functions and staff to Grimsby, which is cheaper, instead of driving people out as a result of the policy of concentration in larger centres.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain and to discuss the Government’s policy on people and estate issues, and its impact on public sector jobs in HMRC and the Valuation Office Agency in Grimsby.
I recognise and appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s passion for his constituency—perhaps we should all call it the promised land—and the fact that he wants to retain as many local services, jobs and employment opportunities for the area as possible. He set out with great knowledge and understanding some of the challenges facing Grimsby, because the private sector is not as strong as he and I would like it to be.
The issue before us is that the main department, HMRC, and its agency, VOA, like others, have been going through a transformation to ensure that they operate in the most efficient and cost-effective way. That process has been taking place for some years, and further efficiencies are required under the spending review settlement. For HMRC, that also provides for reinvestment of more than £900 million to combat tax avoidance, evasion and fraud in return for a reduction in the tax gap of £7 billion a year by 2014-15. That will lead to increased opportunities in enforcement and compliance, but by 2015 HMRC overall will be operating with around 13,000 fewer staff than in 2010.
For both organisations, having the right mix of people and skills in the right-sized teams and locations is important to ensure that they can deliver the services that their customers need. Balancing the need to retain a national network of offices with consistency across operations, while building capability to handle different areas of work, is core to maintaining customer service. Both HMRC and VOA have been carrying out good housekeeping of their estates for a number of years to utilise existing space to the maximum, and that has realised significant savings. For example, VOA has reduced its estate by 25%, saving in excess of £5 million in running costs a year since 2008. HMRC has made cumulative estate savings of £239 million since 2006.
The core efficiency agenda is key to deficit reduction, and managing Government property can contribute to that. The Government’s £370 billion estate costs around £25 billion per annum to run. The highly diverse estate has substantial scope for efficiency improvement, and the Government are the UK’s largest landowner and largest tenant, so it is important to achieve clarity on what is expected from property and how it is to be achieved.
The Government’s property unit leads the property strategy and is responsible for delivering the targeted savings, as well improving the building environment and promoting economic growth where possible. The decisions made by HMRC and VOA working together in a co-ordinated, cross-departmental way on their estates have identified savings to be made, as well as opportunities for work to remain in Grimsby. In December 2008, as part of HMRC’s earlier restructuring programme, the decision on HMRC’s offices in Grimsby was announced. It was decided to vacate Heritage house and retain Imperial house, the larger of the two offices. Heritage house is occupied by HMRC under a memorandum of terms of occupation with the VOA. The VOA now wishes to terminate that memorandum, and HMRC and the VOA will vacate the office by 31 March 2012. HMRC staff in Heritage house were informed of that decision on 24 March 2011.
The office closures will have an immediate impact on people in those locations, and I understand that that is a big concern for the hon. Gentleman. There are around 200 HMRC staff in Grimsby—15 at Heritage house and the remainder at Imperial house. As the hon. Gentleman has said, Imperial house has sufficient space to accommodate all HMRC staff when Heritage house is vacated. The vast majority of staff—167 people—work in the VAT directorate, and about 25 people work in the local compliance department. Local compliance work is being consolidated in Lincoln and Hull where there are established teams.
Austin Mitchell
The Minister has still not said why Heritage house is being disposed of. It is as if the place needs fumigating—there is a mass exodus. Staff from the VOA and HMRC are going, and those from the Crown Prosecution Service have fled to Hull. The building was designed to provide office accommodation for public administration staff. It is beautifully situated; there is parking; and there is a wonderful fish and chip shop nearby. Why the exodus from Heritage house? Why do the Government want to get rid of it?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman has described a somewhat idyllic scene for Heritage house, and the proximity of an excellent fish and chip shop cannot be entirely ignored. Nevertheless, HMRC has to find savings in its estate and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Imperial house has the capacity to take in additional staff. HMRC needs to find savings to be more efficient and to ensure that it is as effective as possible at collecting taxes. Together with the VOA, it has taken the view that Heritage house is surplus to requirements.
The long-term strategy for local compliance is to consolidate teams in fewer sites and place non-specific work in larger teams in urban centres. The local compliance department carries out a risk assessment of location specific work, and it assessed that there is no need for a longer-term compliance presence in Grimsby. It has stretching targets for performance improvement and must deliver those with a reduced work force. The aim is to achieve that by setting up co-located teams that will provide greater opportunity to share skills and experience. That has been happening for some years, and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of recent improvements in the compliance yield obtained by HMRC.
There are similar issues for the 20 VOA staff located in Heritage house. The VOA is working towards having fewer locations nationally, each with a critical mass of staff to enable the sharing of knowledge and skills and improve efficiency. Discussions are taking place between VOA staff and their managers before a formal preference exercise in June. The consideration for HMRC is whether or not the 25 local compliance staff are able to travel to Lincoln or Hull, and they have been asked to express their favoured options by the end of May. The focus at present is on supporting HMRC and VOA staff through that change, while ensuring the continuity of service required for customers—the taxpayer or ratepayer—and in the case of VOA, delivery partners such as billing authorities.
HMRC and the VOA are seeking to avoid any job losses, and the staff consultation will enable them to explore all available options. HMRC staff unable to relocate to Lincoln or Hull will continue to undertake compliance-related work for the foreseeable future, based at Imperial house. No one who lives further away than a distance of reasonable daily travel will be forced to move. The 20 VOA staff, many of whom live in and cover properties in the Grimsby area, may be based elsewhere as a result of those decisions. It is not, however, uncommon for VOA property inspectors to start or end their day from home, if that is more effective and efficient. In addition, the VOA has made provision—subject to business need—for home working, which staff may opt for in the preference exercise. The local impacts of the change will be minimal.
The policy for both HMRC and the VOA is to avoid compulsory redundancies. They will do everything possible to help staff find a suitable role, which may be at the closest neighbouring offices or elsewhere. The VOA will continue to carry out property valuations and assessments locally, and many local staff will continue to carry out that work for Grimsby, so that local knowledge of the area and conditions will not be affected. The specific issue of ports will require specialist expertise, but it should not be disrupted by the changes.
Decisions to inspect specific properties or areas are not necessarily determined by the office location; understanding the area and having the right supporting information is key. In all cases, the decision to inspect a property or locality is made after other avenues have been exhausted and when the information required can be gleaned only by a visit.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of increased travel costs as a consequence of the changes. Travel costs may increase, but HMRC and the VOA believe that those increases will be significantly outweighed by savings on accommodation. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that costs are greater in Hull and Lincoln, but as far as the VOA is concerned, accommodation in those places is considerably cheaper than it is in Grimsby. The issue affects many areas, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it today and defending the interests of his constituents with such passion. Nevertheless, HMRC and the VOA must make a contribution to clearing the fiscal deficit.
Austin Mitchell
This is the second survey that staff have received—the first must have been inconclusive. This time HMRC staff are not signing the option forms, because they feel that there are no alternative jobs in the tax system in north-east Lincolnshire or in other areas. The Minister has not answered the question about why jobs should not be transferred to Grimsby. It would be a cheaper centre from which to carry out non-locational work. If the work can be done from anywhere, why not Grimsby?
Mr Gauke
As I understand it, the view taken by HMRC and the VOA is that the options presented by Hull and Lincoln were more financially persuasive. Accommodation in Lincoln and Hull for the VOA is considerably cheaper than in Grimsby, and decisions were taken for those reasons and on the basis of good estate management. I know that will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is important that HMRC and the VOA take a businesslike approach to the issue and ensure that assets are distributed in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Debt Management Office
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
The United Kingdom Debt Management Office (DMO) has today published its business plan for the year 2011-12. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the DMO’s website, www.dmo.gov.uk.
Building and the Environment
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
The growth review reaffirmed our commitment to zero carbon. We need to deliver carbon savings in order to meet the carbon budgets to which we are committed, and this means that the carbon footprint of new homes cannot be allowed to add to our overall carbon reduction targets. But this needs to be done in ways which are cost-effective and which protect the viability of house building. This statement sets out more details of our policy.
A fundamental principle of environmental regulation is that the “polluter pays”. Previous approaches to zero-carbon homes policy have sought to hold house builders responsible for abating the carbon emissions from household appliances. But occupants’ use of appliances, such as computers or televisions, is not influenced by the design or structure of their home and is therefore beyond the control of the house builder.
Asking house builders to put in place measures to reduce the emissions from appliances is unfair; we have decided therefore that the regulatory threshold for zero-carbon should be set to cover only those emissions which are within the scope of the building regulations, such as those from heating, ventilation, hot water, fixed lighting and building services.
There are already a number of existing policies which deal with emissions from appliances, including the EU emissions trading scheme (which caps emissions from electricity generation) and product energy efficiency measures. Moreover, if house builders, working with local planning authorities, still wish to go further in abating emissions from appliances then they are of course free to do so. In order to prevent excessive burdens on industry and protect the viability of development, the Government will work with local authorities and developers to ensure that the cumulative impact of regulation and other costs can be assessed, without adding complex and unwieldy bureaucracy to plans.
As part of meeting the overall requirement, zero-carbon homes must be energy efficient homes. We have already made clear our intention to introduce the fabric energy efficiency standard as based on the work of the Zero Carbon Hub. This will ensure that homes are warmer, and cheaper and easier to heat.
We also said we would look again at the right level for carbon reductions on the site of the home itself—“carbon compliance”. The Zero Carbon Hub has led a large-scale review of evidence, working with industry, green groups and other experts. The Government have considered with care the findings from this work, and we intend to use the Hub’s recommendations on where to set the maximum levels of on site carbon dioxide emissions as a starting point for consultation as part of future revisions to the building regulations.
We are also keen to build on industry’s commitment to move to an approach based on real world carbon savings, rather than modelled reductions in emissions. This is a bold step forward, and will strengthen focus on innovation delivering new and better technologies and construction methods. We will work with industry to ensure both that this commitment becomes a reality, and that effective assurance is put in place to guarantee the zero-carbon standard and that real world carbon savings are achieved. The end result will be better homes and better protection for the environment.
The Hub’s report “Carbon Compliance: Setting An Appropriate Limit For Zero Carbon New Homes—Findings and Recommendations, February 2011” includes a number of detailed recommendations on technical matters which we will consider as part of the further work on the building regulations. It can be found at: http:// www.zerocarbonhub.org/definition.aspx?page=8.
Where house builders can deliver more ambitious carbon reductions on the site of the home than these minimum requirements, they will have the option to do so. Where it is not possible for house builders to do this cost effectively, we will ensure that a mechanism is available that allows house builders to meet their commitments at a cost no higher than the Government’s long-term value of carbon. This ensures that the offsite requirement of the policy will be delivered cost effectively. This will give industry a benchmark against which to target innovation in carbon reduction technologies which will drive down costs over time.
We intend to work with industry on options for a mechanism to deliver these off-site measures, which will:
be made available to all developers operating in England;
be cost effective by ensuring offsite measures are no higher than the Governments’ long-term value of carbon; and
ensure that any funds raised will be dedicated to carbon abatement.
We will also review the measures which can be supported under these approaches and will consult further with industry, local government and other partners on these.
Taken together, these proposals deliver a realistic and effective approach to zero-carbon, on a par with the most ambitious international efforts to cut domestic carbon and build better, more sustainable homes, whilst at a greatly reduced cost to industry. However, we are keen to look at innovative ways for house builders to meet the additional costs associated with building zero-carbon homes. In particular, we are ready to explore with industry the potential of a green deal type financing approach for new homes, as a way of offsetting some of the up front costs of zero-carbon. We are aware that industry is already forming its thinking on how this can work, and we will continue to work with partners on how best to take this forward.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My noble Friend Lord Henley will represent the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 17 May.
There is only one main agenda item: a discussion on the EU being party to a legally binding agreement on European forests.
There are currently eight items of any other business:
Swedish delegation request in relation to the report on the protection of animals during transport.
Codex alimentarius negotiations—progress and prospects report.
Conference on sustainable food consumption and production—report back from the presidency.
A report from the pigmeat advisory group.
A request from Poland on intervention price for cereals.
A request from Poland on sugar production quota.
G20 agriculture ministerial meeting in June—an update on the plans for this meeting.
A report from Lithuania on the international conference it hosted on animal welfare in the Baltic.
Afghanistan: Monthly Progress Report April 2011
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the sixth progress report on developments in Afghanistan.
The report focuses on key developments during the month of April.
April saw a series of security incidents, notably the attack on the UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif and the escape of about 500 prisoners from the Sarposa jail in Kandahar.
Insurgent activity in April did not increase significantly compared with that seen in March. Within Helmand levels of such activity remained particularly low compared to previous periods. However seasonal trends associated with the completion of the poppy harvest, the large number of weapons caches still being found and the Taliban’s declared intention to begin their spring offensive all suggest that activity will increase over the coming months.
The strength of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) has grown again in April and this, combined with falling attrition rates, will help to ensure that the ANSF are increasingly able to meet this threat. The troubled Kabul bank was taken over by the Government and split into two. The Special Court, established to investigate allegations of malpractice in the autumn parliamentary elections, completed its provincial recounts of the disputed parliamentary election results.
As the Prime Minister stated on 3 May, the death of al-Qaeda founder and leader Osama bin Laden, killed by US ground forces in Pakistan on 2 May, presents a new opportunity for Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together to achieve stability on both sides of the border. We should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taliban: now is the time to separate themselves from al-Qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) and the HMG UK and Afghanistan website (http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/).
Civil and Family Court Offices (Face to Face Services)
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
Following the creation on 1 April of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), I have agreed that the agency should explore the potential to modernise the way in which face to face services in the civil and family courts are provided through its public counters. This will allow a clearer focus of resources on those services which require face to face service and those which should be conducted through alternative means such as online or via the telephone.
In line with many other parts of Government business technology has revolutionised the way in which people conduct business with the courts. 70 % of money claims are now submitted online. HMCTS is now exploring potential to further improve the services it offers to courts users by providing for centralised administration centres. We now expect public services to modernise and provide services outside normal court opening hours. There must, of course, always be mechanisms to deal with urgent business and queries, HMCTS will explore the extent to which court users needs can be met with a system of appointments. For other work, court users will be directed towards using the appropriate online channel and call centres through the use of clear sign-posting in court, within information leaflets and on the internet.
The modernisation of current arrangements will not deny access to services nor create an additional burden for the public and is expected to improve overall efficiency and service standards. The proposals do not affect access to court hearings or the future of particular court buildings.
A document called the “Framework for the Provision of Front Office Services in Civil Courts” was published in September 2008 by what was then Her Majesty’s Court Service. This document allowed some flexibility locally to adapt the delivery of face to face services in the civil courts. Local decisions on modernisation will be undertaken within that framework including local consultation where necessary. However should the need arise the framework will be revised and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Following amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill tabled in the Committee of the House to establish a Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, and to clarify accountabilities for social reform under this coalition Government, this statement confirms:
In reading in legislation Minister of the Crown as relates to Social Mobility refers to the Deputy Prime Minister or such other Minister as is appointed; and
In reading in legislation Minister of the Crown as relates to Child Poverty refers to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
This reflects the coalition Government’s social reforms to enable Social Mobility and Social Justice and our collective commitment to tackle the causes of immobility, inequality and poverty.